Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

D. & J. FOWLER LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANY BILL

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon upon Tuesday next.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR (ORE BERTH) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Land (Reservoirs)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the use of agricultural land for reservoirs, and in par ticular the use of land in Devon; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): As with all other substantial development proposals, our objective is to avoid the loss of good quality agricultural land where acceptable alternatives exist. In applying this policy, agricultural considerations have to be weighed alongside all other relevant factors, including cost and amenity.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this is one of the most serious long-term problems affecting agriculture today? Does he realise that over 1,000 acres of good land are being lost each week? Will he make every effort to call a halt once and for all to the use of good agricultural land for reservoirs and use boggy and waste land rather than land which can produce food to feed the nation?

Mr. Stodart: I readily give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we shall always advance the need to preserve land, particularly land of average or above-average quality.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, whether or not we go into the E.E.C., the population of Britain goes up each year while the amount of land available to provide food for it goes down by 50,000 acres a year? Does he appreciate that this is highly material to the choice of sites for reservoirs?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir.

Macclesfield

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food if he will pay an official visit to Macclesfield.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): While I at present have no plans to visit Macclesfield, I should be very glad to accept any invitation to do so after the holiday season is over.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an invitation from the official Labour candidate and take the opportunity to explain to the electors of Macclesfield which speeches made by him and the Prime Minister are made in jest and which have to be taken seriously?

Mr. Prior: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the "official" Labour candidate. Do I assume that, like in so many other cases, there are more than two views?

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend think it a good idea if he were to join me in Macclesfield on a joint platform shortly before the by-election so that I may have a public opportunity of leading him into the paths of righteousness?

Mr. Prior: I think it would be more appropriate if my hon. Friend went to West Fife.

European Economic Community

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion has taken place in the European Economic Community negotiations concerning production grants for hill farmers.

Mr. Stodart: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 24th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 1606.]

Mr. Strang: Could the Minister be a little more specific than his right hon. Friend was on that occasion? Is it not the case than in an enlarged Community all the production grants for hill farmers will be able to continue throughout and beyond the transitional period? Can one conclude, therefore, that any phasing out of production grants which takes place during the next five years will be at the initiative of the British Government and not in response to pressure or suggestion from the Commission?

Mr. Stodart: I thought my right hon. Friend made the position pretty clear. No one can say that the present arrangements, whether or not we entered Europe, would be absolutely and utterly immutable in every detail. I certainly thought that the reaction of the President of the Scottish National Farmers Union—Scotland is more affected than any other area on this subject—that this was the best news of the week was a pretty good tribute.

Mr. Adam Butler: In view of the announced intention to withdraw up to 15 per cent. of continental land from agriculture, which I understand would be marginal or hill land, can we be certain that in the future we shall not be required to withdraw a percentage ourselves?

Mr. Stodart: It would be very unwise for any Minister of any party to express absolute certainty about anything. I use those words deliberately. But there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which makes these subsidies undesirable or difficult to pay. I have every confidence, considering that the French already pay a headage subsidy on their breeding sheep, that we shall be able to continue to do this.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would the hon Gentleman be rather more certain and precise in his answer to the very reasonable question put by my hon. Friend? Will it be possible to continue the policy of additional production and capital grants, for example, for drainage, which are at present paid to hill farmers in Britain, on broadly the same scale and to broadly the same number of farmers?

Mr. Stodart: I would certainly think so, because the grants mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are of a distinctly structural nature.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that under the E.E.C. rules as long as the production grant is tied to the land is acceptable, and that under the existing Community rules it appears from the guidance lines that there will be money available for such areas as the hill areas of this country and we shall benefit greatly from this?

Mr. Stodart: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hooson: Is it not time the Government were much more explicit on this problem? The hill farmers want to know which of the subsidies payable at present offend the Common Market code and which would be acceptable. After negotiations for years, under the previous and the present Government, the Government should now be in a position to be much more explicit about it.

Mr. Stodart: With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must again call in evidence someone whose opinion is worth a very great deal, and that is the President of the Scottish N.F.U., who has said that this is just the assurance that the union has been waiting for all along.

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with officials of the Commission of the European Economic Community with respect to their proposal that the Common Agricultural Policy covers hops.

Mr. Stodart: Officials of my Department have had contact with officials of the Commission about the draft regulations concerning hops which have been submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers.

Dr. Gilbert: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of these draft regulations will be considerably to increase the price of British beer? We recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulties in protecting the British beer drinker against British brewers, but may we at least hope for some support from him against the depredations of Brussels bureaucrats?

Mr. Stodart: I do not accept for one moment the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The main difference is that in this country we have hops with seeds in them, whereas the Community does not. There is quite a large body of opinion which favours seedless hops in this country, suggesting that these would give higher bittering qualities, which I should have thought would have pleased the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the Hops Marketing Board has been outstandingly successful in its work. Could

he indicate how he sees the future of the board if we enter the E.E.C.?

Mr. Stodart: This question has been asked and answered many times before, and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what I have said on the subject previously.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government's conservation policies in respect of inshore fishing between the 6-mile and 12-mile limits will now require any modification within an enlarged European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: Even as it stands the Community's common fisheries policy would not entail any modification of our existing conservation measures. Nor would it restrict our right to introduce any new measures which might prove necessary provided these were not discriminatory.

Mr. Deakins: Does not the Minister's answer mean that, provided we continue with our existing conservation policies and open up our waters between six and 12 miles to all the fishermen of the E.E.C., this must inevitably reduce the catch available to British fishermen?

Mr. Prior: If we opened our waters in the six to 12-mile belt to other E.E.C. countries which at present do not have traditional rights in that belt, there would be some, but a relatively small, additional weight of fishing carried out in that area. The total catch which comes from the six to 12-mile belt is a comparatively small proportion of the total British catch.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House last week that the 6-mile limit stays as it is. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is, and will remain, the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Prior: There has been absolutely no change in the position which the Government put forward at the recent discussions in Luxembourg, and those discussions will be resumed in the week beginning 12th July.

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister must admit that Belgians, Dutchmen or Frenchment will enter this six to 12-mile limit with small-mesh nets and catch fish Would he confirm that Article 2 of the Common Market Fisheries Convention would give us some help here, and that


we can exclude vessels of a certain length with certain types of gear during certain parts of the year and that we can exclude them for certain kinds of fish?

Mr. Prior: I do not want to intrude on later Questions on the Order Paper. It would be entirely within our own hands what conservation policies are pursued in the 12-mile belt. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, foreigners enter with nets of a smaller mesh than we use, we can keep them out.

Sir D, Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what help, other than the payment of compensation, he proposes for the horticultural industry in the event of British entry into the European Economic Community;
(2) what is the nature and measure of the compensation which he proposes for the horticultural industry in the event of British entry into the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: We have secured agreement to exceptional transitional measures to help the horticultural industry adapt to the conditions that would obtain in an enlarged Community. Nevertheless, we recognise that there will be some growers who will face difficult problems of adjustment. I have given a firm undertaking to discuss with leaders of the industry the help the Government might give in such cases, but it is too soon to say what the form or extent of compensation or other help might be.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: On 8th June my right hon. Friend referred to "forms of compensation" and "or other help". Would he be a little more explicit and say whether he envisages any form of compensation other than straight monetary compensation and, if so, what? Could he undertake that these matters will be fully amplified in the proposed White Paper?

Mr. Prior: It will be too early for all these measures to be fully amplified in the White Paper because one has to form an accurate assessment of what sections of the industry, if any, will suffer as a result of joining the Community.
On the first part of the question, when I referred to "other forms of help" I

was thinking of, not only compensation but perhaps additional aids, to enable people to change from one type of production to another.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Bearing in mind the increasing growth of acreage in certain agricultural crops, will my right hon. Friend consider giving a date after which he will not pay compensation on new agricultural projects so that he may pay more generous compensation to the older horticultural holdings?

Mr. Prior: I would not visualise paying compensation to growers who are at present planting up new acreages or going in for new methods of horticultural production, because presumably they are doing that now only because they see a future for it, and I am glad that they see a future for it. What we are concerned with is those who for one reason or another have large investments in holdings which might be affected as a result of our joining the Community.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now give his revised estimate as to the expected rise in food prices in Great Britain if Great Britain joins the European Economic Community.

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the revised figures of the increase in the cost of food on entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) on 8th June.—[Vol. 818, c. 835–6.]

Mr. Greville Janner: In the reply to which he has referred the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that figures were being prepared. Is it not deplorable that the figures are not yet available? Is not the delay in producing the figures caused because food prices are constantly increasing and the longer the Government postpone the time when they estimate the increase the lower the increase will be?

Mr. Prior: The hon. and learned Gentleman must contain his impatience


for another few days. The figures will be published in the White Paper.

Mr. Butler: I share the concern of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) about the need for these figures to be published. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will show that the gap between our prices and continental prices will have narrowed and that this will reflect the way that continental farmers have kept down their prices as against the rise in world commodity prices?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. World commodity prices have gone up by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. over the last year or so, whereas the E.E.C. over the last four years has retained practically constant prices for commodities: there have been very small increases in prices. The figures which will be published in the White Paper within the next few days will bear this out.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consultations he has had with the National Farmers' Union with regard to Great Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he intends to have with farmers' and farmworkers' representatives immediately after the completion of the European Economic Community negotiations.

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consultations he has had with the National Farmers' Union regarding possible entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend will continue to maintain close contact with the farmers' representatives and will be glad to consider any views farmworkers' representatives may wish to put forward.

Mr. Baker: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that when it comes to negotiating the change over from one system of price support or subsidy to another the

National Farmers' Union will be consulted at every turn and not presented with a fait accompli?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir; I can indeed give that assurance.

Mr. Strang: Will the forthcoming White Paper give us a real indication of the changes that will have to take place in the structure and organisation of our marketing boards?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that is very relevant to the Question that the hon. Gentleman has tabled. If the hon. Gentleman will table an appropriate Question I shall be delighted to answer it.

Mr. Hornby: To what degree has the National Farmers' Union expresed satisfaction with the progress so far made and announced in the negotiations and, in particular, with the announcements made about horticulture?

Mr. Stodart: The N.F.U. has taken note of the progress made so far. It has asked that it should receive details as progress is made. The N.F.U. realises— indeed, neither my right hon. Friend nor I has ever made any bones about this— that there will be certain difficulties for horticulture, but I do not think these should be exaggerated.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are those on both sides of the House who welcome the improvement in his health and his return here?
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be discussing with the N.F.U. the very serious difference between the interpretation of the terms for New Zealand made by President Pompidou and that given to the House of Commons last Thursday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Mr. Stodart: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
My recollection of what the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand said was that New Zealand was thoroughly satisfied with the package deal. I do not think anything that President Pompidou says is in contradiction of that.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Referring to the Parliamentary Secretary's rather brusque reply to my hon. Friend the Member for


Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about the attitude of the N.F.U. to marketing boards, is it not the case that the union is very concerned about the future of the boards and particularly of the Milk Marketing Board? In the light of this concern, which is generally shared in the House, will the Minister consider including in the White Paper an indication of how the Government see the future of the boards if we enter the E.E.C.?

Mr. Stodart: That is a slightly different question. The hon. Gentleman invited me to say specifically whether a reference would appear in the White Paper, but his Question makes no reference to this and concerns discussions with the farmers' unions. I am perfectly prepared to put this point to my right hon. Friend.

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if member States of the European Economic Community can regulate the size of netting used by fishermen in their waters.

Mr. Prior: Members of the European Economic Community have power to apply conservation measures to protect stocks within their fishery limits provided they do not discriminate on grounds of nationality. However, the most important regulations governing the mesh of nets are those adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which apply outside national fishery limits as well as inside, and which are binding on members of that Commission whether or not they are in the European Economic Community.

Sir C. Taylor: Can the member States of the Community take any other conservation steps which may be considered appropriate to their own waters?

Mr. Prior: Yes; within their 12-mile limit they can. The only stipulation is that the measures must not be discriminatory between one nationality and another. In so far as they fall within the 12-mile limit, an individual nation can take whatever conservation measures it wishes to.

Mr. Tinn: In the event of British entry to the Common Market, what proposals has the Minister for strengthening the fishery protection service, which

at its present strength is clearly inadequate to do that work?

Mr. Prior: This is a very important matter which has been raised with me by the inshore fishing industry on several occasions and which I take very seriously. The Government will be looking into this.

Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not just a question of net size and boat size? We have recently negotiated with the Danes a fixed quota on the number of salmon that they are allowed to take out by drift netting? Will these arrangements stand once Denmark joins the E.E.C.? Will my right hon. Friend consider this very important point?

Mr. Prior: This is again a matter of conservation. We shall wish to pursue with Denmark and other countries all matters of conservation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a very important answer to a previous Question on this issue? Is he saying that after the five-year transitional period this country can exclude foreign fishing boats from the outer six-mile limit?

Mr. Prior: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this. The proposal we have put to the Community is that between the 6-mile and 12-mile limit from 1973 those who have traditional fishing rights should be joined by the rest of the E.E.C. countries, but that the band up to six miles is exclusive to us.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps he is taking to prepare to harmonise food prices with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: There is no question of harmonising retail food prices, which vary widely within the Community. Farm gate prices will be brought gradually into line with Community levels under the transitional arrangement already announced.

Mr. Marten: If the Community harmonises its value-added tax and decides to place it on food, shall we have to follow suit, or can we opt out specifically on food?

Sir G. Nabarro: Do not be silly. You cannot opt out of anything.

Mr. Prior: That question is really not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All the harmonisation we have to undertake at this stage with the Community is harmonisation of farm gate prices. This will still lead to enormous variations in retail prices, and certainly to lower prices for us, chiefly because our retail system is much more efficient.

Mr. Heffer: The Minister cannot slide out of the question as easily as that. The truth of the situation is that he knows that one of the first harmonisation programmes in the E.E.C. is of taxation and V.A.T. Will he now reply to the point made by his hon. Friend? Will the V.A.T. apply to food once the harmonisation programme is put into operation? If it is insisted that it shall apply to food, what will be the Government's attitude?

Mr. Prior: That is a hypotheical question. It will depend entirely on what happens after we join the Community, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the Government's policy to put a value-added tax on food.

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has recently had regarding Great Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community with British fisheries organisations.

Mr. Prior: My officials have been in frequent touch, particularly with the British Trawlers' Federation and the Fisheries Organisation Society, and I have met the latter twice in the past fortnight.

Mr. Reed: My right hon. Friend will know that fish, being itinerant creatures, derive no special advantage from flying under the flag of one nation as against another, and are totally oblivious to the phoney frontiers we draw in the marine environment. As, therefore, effective conservation of living resources of the sea is so self-evidently an international exercise, does he agree that the anxieties expressed about the common fisheries policy are, to say the least, somewhat exaggerated?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that lengthy and erudite supplementary question. There are genuine anxieties on the part of the inshore fishermen, and the Government are determined to allay them. But I hope that they will not over-state their case and not pay too much attention to some other people who perhaps are not so interested in fisheries but have hopped on that band wagon for other reasons.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister has spoken of his discussions. In view of the statement by the British Trawlers' Federation, will he be having discussions with its representatives before the meetings in Brussels on 12th July?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. We have arranged to see the B.T.F. before 12th July.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend remove another worry? If we are to allow our partners in the E.E.C. to come within our 6-to-12-mile limit, will he make certain that our vessels will be allowed within the 6-to-12-mile band of the Six and the four associated States?

Mr. Prior: That is a very important matter, in which my hon. Friend is rightly extremely interested. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister consider entering into discussions with the E.E.C. about the possibility of having a variable withdrawal price to enable fishing ports, particularly of the inshore fleet, far from the central markets to benefit to a greater extent than they would if there were a flat rate?

Mr. Prior: This is another very important point. It has been the subject of negotiation in the secondary legislation committee in which we are concerned at Brussels. The hon. Gentleman's point will be well taken care of in the course of the negotiations.

Mr. Homby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are now proposed for the marketing of Great Britain's apples and pears if the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community.

Mr. Prior: Adoption of the Community's common organisation of the market would not affect the industry's


general responsibility for the marketing of home-grown apples and pears.

Mr. Hornby: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that effective marketing arrangements are vital for the future of the industry? What discussions has he had with representatives of the Six to ensure that the market does not become excessively glutted by too much low grade continental production?

Mr. Prior: This will not happen during the period of transition because we have made arrangements to cover it. After the period of transition is over, and long before that has come about, negotiations must take place on proper marketing, and I hope that this will involve the present members of the Community in getting their surplus production under control.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by the Apple and Pear Council regarding the imminent removal of import quotas? Is he prepared to reconsider, even at this stage, the possibility of extending the life of these quotas?

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the concern in the industry about this. We cannot continue with the quota system as such, but the other arrangements we have made for the introduction of a levy, which will be phased out over the period of transition, will, I think, give approximately the same degree of protection as diminishing or extending quotas would.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which those very efficient British producers, the horticultural growers of apples and pears, can protect themselves is to develop their marketing right down to the wholesale market, so that they have some control over the eventual purchase of apples and pears by the public?

Mr. Prior: Yes, of course. I think that the vast majority of the apple and pear growers, who are producing a high quality of product, will find a ready sale for these commodities after entry into the E.E.C.

Mr. Buchan: Has the time not come for the right hon. Gentleman's annual message of encouragement to the British housewife—that if she cannot afford apples and pears she will have to eat peaches?

Mr. David Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations there are in the European Economic Community in relation to lamb.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: There is no common organisation of the market in the Community for sheep meat but there is a common external tariff of 20 per cent.

Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is considerable concern in certain quarters in this country about the presence of draft regulations at Brussels relating to sheep meat? If these draft regulations become effective, can he offer any assurance to British and New Zealand sheep farmers?

Mr. Stodart: There are many restrictions among different countries at the moment but I believe, as New Zealand believes, that an acceptable volume of trade will continue to jump over the 20 per cent. tariff, and New Zealand has accepted that access will be both adequate and remunerative. In the case of any regulations brought in before our entry, we would hope to be consulted and we certainly would be consulted if they were brought in after entry.

Mr. Jay: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that if we joined we should then have to impose a tariff of 20 per cent. on lamb imported from New Zealand and Australia?

Mr. Stodart: We would phase in a 20 per cent. tariff against third countries gradually if we were to join.

Food Prices

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters relating to food price increases he has received since 9th June, 1971.

Mr. Prior: About 70.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of how many letters he receives, nobody expects the British housewife to treat either him or, for that matter, the Prime Minister seriously after the statement he made on 9th June? Can we assume that in future the Minister will be able to interpret some of the statements that President Pompidou makes, such as the one that he made at the weekend? For instance, can we expect the


Minister to be able to tell us whether cheap New Zealand cheese will reach vanishing point; or was President Pompidou at his meeting with the British Prime Minister doing another electoral con job?

Mr. Prior: The one thing that all hon Members in all parts of the House will agree about is that nobody ever takes the hon. Gentleman seriously.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in retail food prices occurred between 1st July, 1970 and 30th June, 1971, or the latest convenient date, expressed per centum.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the Food Index has risen from June, 1970, to the latest available date.

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in the index of retail prices between 19th June, 1970, and 18th June, 1971, or the last convenient date.

Mr. Prior: Between 16th June, 1970, and 18th May, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 10·4 per cent.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend take the increase in food prices very seriously? Is he aware that a rise of 10·4 per cent. in those 12 months added to a continuing rate of 9·6 per cent. would give 20 per cent. over two years, and that two results, both damaging to the economy, will flow from that? The first is that the whole of the tax reductions in the last Budget will be offset. Second, there will be much greater pressure for increased wages, leading to an even faster rate of inflation than in the past 12 months.

Mr. Prior: Of course I take the matter seriously. We dealt with it very carefully in debate both last Tuesday and yesterday.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that he gave a shocking reply and that the only way in which he can end the discomfiture of his hon. Friend——

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not discomfited.

Mr. Willey: —and recover his self-respect is to resign?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the last time a Conservative Government were elected after a Labour Government they had to face exactly the same problem.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that just two days before the General Election the Prime Minister said that the wage explosion was the only way in which people could protect their standard of living? Will the Government now recognise that wages are chasing prices, and not the other way round?

Mr. Prior: I might remind the hon. Gentleman that his leader said that one man's wage increase was another man's price increase.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the serious increase in retail prices of food, will my right hon. Friend continue to emphasise the Government's policy of helping those people who are worst hit by inflation and rising prices?

Mr. Prior: Certainly, I believe it to be a very important part of the Government's social policy.

Mr. Barnes: In view of the great emphasis the Prime Minister always places on the cut in S.E.T. when his policy on food price increases is criticised, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an up-to-date assessment of the impact that that cut will make on food prices? Has not the Prime Minister grossly exaggerated the extent to which the cut will be passed on to the housewife?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. Only this morning I received a letter from the biggest personal service retail butchers in the country, with about 1,570 shops, saying that as soon as S.E.T. is reduced next week it will see that every single penny of the cut is passed back to the customer.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the committee he has appointed to inquire into the fowl pest epidemic will, in view of the gravity of the situation, issue an interim report.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Review Panel has been asked to work as speedily as possible and may certainly make interim recommendations where these would be appropriate.

Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain parishes of Lincolnshire the disease has spread to avian predators and various song birds which are not normally the responsibility of the Ministry? Will they be covered by the interim report?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, they will.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Will my hon. Friend ask the panel whether, as an interim measure at least, it can give guidance on the spreading—or, rather, not spreading—of manures from poultry houses affected with this disease?

Mr. Stodart: It is an offence at the moment to spread manure or slurry which has not been disinfected, and our officials take particular care to ensure that this is carried out. I will draw the attention of the panel to what my hon. Friend has said so that it may consider it urgently.

Cereal Harvest (Marketing)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to give guidance to growers on the orderly marketing of this year's cereal harvest.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend considers that farmers need no guidance from him about the importance of orderly marketing of grain. It is up to the individual grower to study the market and match his sales to its needs.

Mr. Morrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that current crop ratings are well above the 10-year average and that under the new system working this year there may be some initial confusion at the beginning of the cereal marketing period? Will he keep a close watch and give further guidance if necessary?

Mr. Stodart: I am prepared to keep a close watch on it. But I counsel my hon. Friend not to be over-optimistic. The harvest is not here yet, and quite a lot can happen before then.

SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of Sweden to pay an official visit to Great Britain.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Mr. Palme would always be welcome in this country but there are at present no plans for a visit.

Mr. Deakins: At any such meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the Swedish Prime Minister an assurance that in no circumstances would this country countenance the re-erection of trade barriers between Britain and Sweden?

The Prime Minister: The Swedes are responsible for their own negotiations with the E.E.C. They have been having discussions, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As I understand it, they are working out the sort of arrangements they want. The undertaking which every E.F.T.A. country gave to the others on 28th April, 1967, was that, if one of them wanted to join the E.E.C., there should be reasonable opportunity for the others to have a period in which they could work out transitional arrangements. As I said after my meeting in Paris with President Pompidou, we agreed that it was undesirable that where trade barriers had been reduced they should now be erected again.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that comparison between this country and Sweden is not very helpful, as Sweden is not only a neutral country but one which has special need to look after the minority in Finland, which has already been threatened by the Soviet Union were Sweden to attempt to enter the E.E.C?

The Prime Minister: I think it has been widely recognised, and successive Governments in Sweden have always emphasised, that their political policy of neutrality provided certain difficulties in relation to full membership of the E.E.C. But, having always stated that policy, they have always understood that a form of association could be negotiated for them, and that, I understand, is what is happening now.

MEANS TESTS

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister how many persons he estimates in a full year will be subject to means tests following the implementation of all those means-tested schemes currently planned by various Departments.

The Prime Minister: As so many variable factors affect the numbers eligible, no reliable estimates are possible. The largest single category of means-tested beneficiaries are those covered by the supplementary benefit scheme introduced by our predecessors; and the total numbers benefiting from schemes for giving help selectively where it is needed will be higher than under the previous Administration because of the introduction of the family income supplement and increases in income limits.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is being coy again. Will he not acknowledge that the new housing allowance scheme which the Government will announce shortly, together with the family income supplement, will for the first time in the case of families where the head is in full-time work bring more than 10 million people—or at least one-fifth of the population—within the ambit of the means test? Will he explain how by yet another of his electoral dishonesties last June he failed to admit to the nation his intentions as the purveyor of a new poor law?

The Prime Minister: I will ignore the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and answer the first part. One can identify 43 major means-tested benefits provided by central and local government. Sixteen of these are statutory assessments and 27 are discretionary assessments. The Government have added one more—for the family income supplement. The great majority of local authorities already have rent rebate schemes for their housing, which they operate themselves. We are extending this facility to privately-rented accommodation. This does not seem to me to be something which the hon. Gentleman should criticise. If he wants to say that the lower-paid workers should not get the family income supplement, that is a debatable question of policy, but we have concluded that this is the best

way to help them, and it means an increase of one means test over the 43 operated under the last Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the introduction of rent rebates to local government was a process which was much encouraged by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As I understand it, the previous Administration did not in the least disagree that local authorities, many of the Labour-controlled authorities, should operate rent rebate schemes. My hon. Friend is quite right; the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) when he was Minister of Housing greatly encouraged this, and I believe that at one stage he contemplated making it compulsory for local authorities.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the more means tests there are the tendency is for fewer people to apply for the benefits as of right, either through ignorance or because of personal dignity or whatever? Despite the increased publicity which the Government have given to these schemes, is he aware that the number of applicants has been fewer than expected? Will he reconsider the entire question of means tests, and particularly the family income supplement, which is a means of subsidising mean private industrialists?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Obviously, if this were proved to be the case, then any government must consider the situation. I must ask the hon. Member to keep this in perspective. What I have told the House is that to the 43 major forms of means tests which existed under the previous Conservative and Labour Administrations one more has been added. That is all. When it comes to the numbers of people who take advantage of the benefits, the Government have carried out what is generally agreed to be the biggest ever programme to provide information about these benefits to citizens. If the hon. Gentleman then complains that more people take advantage of them,


what he is really saying is that he wants the benefits to go to people irrespective of their wealth. In view of the well-known interest of the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. William Hamilton: Too long.

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like this. I would not have thought that he wanted all benefits to go to people irrespective of their wealth, knowing his well-known interest in other people's wealth.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do not the Government's housing proposals to which hon. Gentlemen opposite refer apply on a wide scale what used to be the Socialist principle of "to each according to his need"?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the visit of the Italian Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Signor Colombo arrived in London on Sunday and after a visit to Edinburgh will return home tomorrow. I have had very full discussions with Signor Colombo and Signor Moro, who is accompanying him, covering European questions, including enlargement of the Community, and other international issues of common interest.

Mr. Marten: While, naturally, I welcome the visit of the Italian Prime Minister, could my right hon. Friend say whether Signor Colombo gave his wholehearted support to President Pompidou's aim of a confederation for Europe?

The Prime Minister: The Italian Government have always expressed a desire to have closer European unity. We have not on this occasion discussed the specific nature of that unity in the political sphere because all Governments in the Community and ourselves as a possible member agreed that this was something which must be discussed when the Community is enlarged.

Mr. Grimond: Following upon that question, as the Italians played a leading part in the earlier discussions on the political future of Europe can the right

hon. Gentleman say—although he says that no firm decision was made—whether any timetable was drawn up or preparations were made for taking this matter up again and perhaps following it up in the Fouchet and other committees in future?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No timetable or programme was worked out for these discussions. As far as I know, the Community has nothing in mind like the previous Fouchet Committee, which prepared a plan on a federal basis for greater unity in Europe.

Mr. Moyle: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he discussed with the Italian Prime Minister the creation of a technological community in Europe since this was a major feature of the Labour Government's application about which we have not heard much from this Government?

The Prime Minister: Members of the Community recognise the immense importance of technological development. Signor Colombo in a speech last night paid tribute to the contribution which Britain could make in this respect. On the other hand, I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree that it has never been accepted policy of the members of the Community that a separate technological community should be created. The movement has been in the opposite direction, because Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community have become merged.

COWES

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Cowes.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Skinner: As a land-based sportsman of somewhat little consequence— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I can understand the Prime Minister's desire to get away from it all. As far as I am concerned, he can sail all week.

Hon. Members: Question !

Mr. Skinner: I am coming to that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he had drifted close to the French


coast last weekend he would have seen President Pompidou, with his feet planted on terra firma, gloating about the French farmers and how they will now be able to rape British housewives?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that while we were off the French coast we were not visualising such exciting possibilities. We were confining ourselves to meals of New Zealand cheese.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a lot to learn from the manœuvres at Cowes and that they may learn to come about into the wind and save the nation the squalid spectacle of a gybe all-standing?

The Prime Minister: I was not warned of that nautical manœuvre. All I can comment is that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be able to tack all right when they think it suitable.

CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will outline his specific duties as head of the Civil Service Department.

The Prime Minister: The position remains as it was under the previous Administration. I am ultimately responsible for the whole range of work of the Civil Service Department, which covers machinery of government, the broad organisation of Departments, the development of administrative techniques including the provision of certain central services, together with the central management of the Civil Service, the recruitment of civil servants and their pay, pensions and other conditions of service.
Day to day responsibility for the Department is delegated to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the continuing sense of wonder that this enormous Civil Service machine did not find itself able to warn the Government within hours of the position over Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Or is it perhaps that Mr. Anthony Hepper is right and the Government were indeed told?

The Prime Minister: The position has been stated to the House quite clearly, and it is that it was the Government director on the board of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders who asked for a fresh investigation to be made into the financial state of the company. The result of this investigation was made known to the board on Monday and the Government were informed by the board on Wednesday. It is difficult to see how under any organisation of Government it is possible to know more than the board of a company knows about its finances. As we were told within 48 hours of the company hearing of the result of the report, I would have thought that we had been speedily informed.

Mr. Thorpe: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is rather fine accounting for a 49 per cent. shareholder to know that there is only enough cash to last three days?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Government's decision, but when the board reported to us it reported that it was able to pay wages for the following week. At the same time it wished to give information to the trade unions that this was the case. We asked immediately for time in order to be able to examine this situation ourselves. We asked for only four days, and the company agreed to give us this. We said that, if the board wished it, we would undertake to pay wages for the following week in any case. On the Sunday the company informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that it was not even in a position to pay wages for that week. The Government then undertook the responsibility of paying wages for the current week as well as for the following week, and have since accepted the responsibilities which have been explained to the House.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman do the House the favour of reading in yesterday's HANSARD the answers to the large number of Written Questions on this subject? He will find, if the answers of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are to be accepted, that his Department was in continuous contact with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders from the middle of October last year, and that all the information that could have been given was continuously given.


If the right hon. Gentleman accepts what is said in yesterday's HANSARD, will he hold a public inquiry into this matter?

The Prime Minister: It is well known that in February of this year, when the Government made the arrangements for Yarrow and provided a considerable sum of money to enable Yarrow to be separated as a defence asset from U.C.S., it was the firm view of U.C.S. that the company was then viable and that its outlook was bright, and this was accepted by the Government. Later on, as I said, a director on the board took the view that the company must look further into its finances. It was as a result of this report, information on which was passed to the Government two days after it was known by the board, that the board decided it should go into liquidation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we are getting a little far from the Question on the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and the Civil Aviation Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

GENERAL OBJECTIVES, AND GUIDANCE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'the preceding paragraphs' and insert 'paragraph (a) above'.

The Amendment is designed to delete what to us is the offending paragraph (b) in Clause 3(1) which deals with the legal establishment and legal recognition of the second force airline.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible to hear my right hon. Friend. Will you please direct hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. Will hon. Members wishing to leave the Chamber do so more silently?

Mr. Mason: We are still disturbed at the legislative preference that remains in the Bill which stresses that the Civil Aviation Authority shall have a duty to one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board. I refer, of course, to Caledonian/B.U.A. The Government have established by legislation an independence right, yet within the same Clause dealing with the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority there is no mention of the Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. We think that this is a deliberately slanted Clause, forcing the C.A.A. at all times to keep in the forefront of its mind this badly-conceived airline of the Government's.
The Government, have robbed B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. of routes, having provided an illegal base from which this


airline begins and having created this dangerous precedent of confiscation without compensation—and I keep reminding the House that this will not be forgotten —have then spelt out in legislation that their airline will have all the opportunities to participate in providing on charter and other terms, air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) said in Committee, it is not just a matter of allowing the airline to operate as a viable concern but of writing in special provisions "so that it is tucked up and statutorily preserved."
This legislative preference is wrong. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can defend it, especially when the two Corporations are omitted. It is incumbent upon the Government to withdraw this offending paragraph (b) of Clause 3(1), or at least, in this Clause dealing with the Authority's functions, to give the Corporations the same legal recognition.
I draw to the attention of the House the recent activities of this British independent airline, Caledonian/B.U.A. The company applies to the Air Transport Licensing Board for more licences in addition to the routes transferred by the Government from B.O.A.C.'s West African route licences. At the hearing, Mr. Laurie, the Chairman of the Board, said to Caledonian/B.U.A.:
It is absolutely proper that you make your application but it seems it goes much farther than the Secretary of State's statement of intent. The Board wants to make it clear that it is not hearing what it thought it was going to hear today, a rather formal application based on Government policy.
So Caledonian/B.U.A. has begun already. The airline is not going to the Air Transport Licensing Board for routes based on Government policy and statements of intent, but is trying at the very outset to twist the arm of the A.T.L.B., to cheat the Government and crudely try to extract from the Board even more than the Government had pinched for it. During the hearing, Mr. Laurie, having decided that the Board should reserve its decisions on all the applications, as a rebuke to Caledonian/B.U.A., said:
Considering the vast number of words spoken in both Houses of Parliament, the gallons of printing ink used in leading articles, and the many pints of bad blood spilt of this, I am astonished that you two gentlemen are saying so little to the Board about this.

The House must note that Caledonian/B.U.A. at the first opportunity has ignored Government policy and has tried to browbeat the A.T.L.B. into granting it even more than its stolen routes. I hope that the Minister has taken note of this episode and, in the light of this experience, will make sure that the Civil Aviation Authority under Clause 3(1)(b) does not flout this decision of the A.T.L.B.
I was not entirely satisfied on this point with what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee:
No absolute preference will be given to the second force in terms of transfers. That will be laid down quite clearly in the guidance that we give. But if a new route fits into the second force airline operation it should be given preference if other things are equal on merit."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th April, 1971; c. 115.]
Then only a minute or so later he said, in column 116:
There is no question of our imposing upon the Authority a duty to prop up an inefficient, unviable second force. I have said over and over again that having made the necessary essential transfer to get the second force off the ground, we must leave it to stand on its own feet.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to tell us the truth of the matter. Was this done by Government preference or, now that the transfer has taken place, do the right hon. Gentleman and the Authority intend to let the second force airline stand on its own feet?
I have said enough about this offending paragraph. I think that the same legislative recognition within the Clause should be given to B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., or the Government should withdraw recognition from this one major British independent airline.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to make some reference to the attempt by Caledonian/B.U.A. to flout his directive before the A.T.L.B. I should like to know what he feels about his comments in Committee. Although he said that it would have preference provided that everything else was equal on merit, having now transferred the routes to Caledonian/B.U.A., is he going to allow the second force to stand on its own feet.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I rise briefly to support my right hon. Friend, but I suggest that he should have gone even further. I put down an Amendment to Clause 3, which, unfortunately,


does not look like being called, which would drastically modify the whole of Clause 3. I have always felt that if we are to have any kind of regulatory air licensing body at all, it should be powerful. I do not recall seeing the same sort of directive in any other piece of legislation to set up any corresponding national air licensing body. If we are going to secure the continuity of one independent airline, why has it to be Caledonian/B.U.A.? I have often called this Bill the "Protection of Caledonian/B.U.A. (No. 2) Bill", just as I regarded the declaratory provisions legislation as the "Protection of Caledonian/B.U.A. (No. 1) Bill".
If we are to have an independent authority to promote the air services of British carriers and air transport, it should not be hamstrung in this way and should certainly not be hampered by paragraph (b). If we are to allow civil aviation to do its job properly, it should be allowed to shape its own policy. The kind of conclusion reached by the Edwards Committee missed out on one central point, namely, that if we are to have any central licensing body the policy should not be shaped by Government but by the licensing body itself. The whole emphasis of air transport licensing nowadays is that we are encouraging a situation in which cases are coming forward so thick and fast, that it is impossible for the Secretary of State to make up his mind on each one, as he will with the kind of legislation we have before us today.
We shall reach a situation where particularly in interpreting Clause 3(1)(b) the civil aviation authority will have to face further pleading from Caledonian/B.U.A. when it gets into further difficulties. It is well known that Caledonian/B.U.A. finds itself over-stretched, particularly in financing the domestic trunk competition which is now being foisted on B.E.A. It is also well known that the company faces stiff competition on the west coast of the U.S.A. from American charter operators and, presumably, will face stiffer competition when the rules and regulations proposed by the American C.A.B. ultimately comes into being. Are we about to see a situation in which Caledonian/B.U.A. will have to be subject to special pleading

because the Civil Aviation Authority has this duty under paragraph (b)? I suggest that we should modify the Clause completely. Although I shall support my hon. Friend's Amendment I suggest that it would be far better to drop the whole Clause and seek to insert that it shall be the duty of the Civil Aviation Authority
to secure that British airlines provide economic, safe and efficient air services in the interests of the consumer and of the nation",

3.45 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I have listened with interest to the points made by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and also by his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying, appropriately, that this might well be a short debate. We have on a number of occasions debated this particular problem in its various forms. It is unlikely that the right hon. Gentleman and I will ever entirely agree about this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman complains that neither B.O.A.C. nor B.E.A. has been specifically mentioned by name. I do not feel that this is a very serious point. I must have said on a large number of occasions, both in the House and in Committee upstairs, that in the Government's view—indeed I do not think any Government could take any other view—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are the two main carriers of the British flag in civil aviation. I do not think it is necessary to mention them by name in the Clause to makes this plain to anybody who has knowledge of civil aviation, and certainly not to the Civil Aviation Authority.
The second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Caledonian/B.U.A. application for licences before the A.T.L.B. covered one or two places which were covered by B.O.A.C. in routes to West Africa. I cannot see that Caledonian/B.U.A. was in any sense trying to browbeat the A.T.L.B. in applying for these routes. That company, just as any other airline, can apply to the Board for any routes it wishes and it is for the Board to make up its mind on whether it is a sensible or inadvisable application. In this case the Board concluded that it was not a sensible application to accept and turned


it down. The right hon. Gentleman is stretching matters if he is saying that Caledonian/B.U.A., or any other airline, would attempt to browbeat the Board. Certainly neither my Department nor I myself gave the Board any advice on this matter. The Board came to its own conclusion from its own particular knowledge of the situation, and did what it thought right.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that whether or not it was a question of browbeating the A.T.L.B., it is certainly cool cheek for Caledonian/B.U. A., just after it has received a massive handout from its political friends to come along with another begging bowl asking for more preferential treatment?

Mr. Noble: I do not view it in that way. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) is entitled to his view. In the future, there may be perfectly good examples where Caledonian-B.U.A. or any other airline is entitled to go to the A.T.L.B. asking for routes which it believes that it can serve efficiently and perhaps better than B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. The Board is there as an institution blessed by Parliament, now to be superseded by the Civil Aviation Authority, and airlines can ask it for licences which they think make sense. The hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in civil aviation. He will know that the Board has for many years established a very right and proper reputation for looking independently and sensibly at any application made to it and for making up its own mind about it. It would resent, just as the hon. Gentleman and some airlines would resent, pressure from outside as to how it should do its job.
My feeling on this point is simply that it is right for Caledonian-B.U.A. or any other airline to make application to the Board. It is equally right for the Board to turn down any application if it sees fit. There is no question of browbeating or of improper pressures.
The next point that the hon. Gentleman made is one of which I have some understanding, and it is a difficult one. On every occasion on which this subject has been debated, I have made it clear that it was the intention of the present Government to create a second force airline, as the Edwards Committee sug-

gested and as the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends accepted in their White Paper. I accept that there is a difference between us. In our case, we realise that it could not possibly get started without being given some transfer of routes, and there is a division between the two sides of the House as to how much. That was our view, and I am certain that, if the General Election result had been reversed, this would have been a problem that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have had to face if they really wanted to get a second force airline.

Mr. Russell Kerr: We did not.

Mr. Noble: Perhaps they did not. There may be a difference of opinion on that among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that is not unusual. Be that as it may, if the second force is to be a meaningful addition to the British civil aviation effort, it has to be able to be viable and to provide a thoroughly satisfactory service to consumers, whether they are in this country or overseas.
I have said that the guidance which will be given to the Civil Aviation Authority before it comes into operation—it will be presented to Parliament in due course—will make it clear that there is not to be an automatic preference given to Caledonian/B.U.A. over any other airline, be it on scheduled or other services. Each case will be looked at on its merits. If the merits are sufficient, the guidance will make it clear that a reasonable amount of preference should be given to the second force airline so that it can build up the strength which is necessary if it is to operate efficiently. It will not be given preference in all circumstances. The Civil Aviation Authority will look at the situation at the time, and, if it is clear that Caledonian/B.U.A. and any other airline are equal on merit, then perhaps preference ought to be given to the second force airline.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton asked why the second force airline should be Caledonian/B.U.A., and he described this massive Bill as the Caledonian/B.U.A. Protection (No. 2) Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be spending a good deal of this evening with us, and I can assure him that there is a vast amount in the Bill, over and above this point on which


both sides of the House may be sharply divided.
If it was wise and sensible to try to create a second force, as the Edwards Committee reported, the fact is that there was no other airline to take that place in civil aviation. There may not be for a number of years. If Caledonian and B.U.A. had not decided to get together, it is possible that there would have been no available second force. Therefore, this is an accident of timing and of history, and that is why Caledonian/B.U.A. is the second force.
I accept entirely that there are considerable problems in civil aviation at the moment. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton said, there is considerable competition on charter services all over the world. Anyone who is interested in civil aviation has seen many points developing, some of them wisely and some not so wisely, and there is a great deal of discussion internationally of them. But, whether it is competition in charter services or lack of sufficient passengers for the scheduled services which in the past have been a very paying proposition for all the major airlines and which at the moment are not paying because there is a large surplus of aircraft and not enough passengers, there is no doubt that civil aviation is passing through a period of tough competition.

Mr. John Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman described the Caledonian/B.U.A. merger as an accident. Now he is telling us about a planned situation. If that planned situation has been guided by an accident, can we be sure that there are no other accidents in the Bill which have not yet been discovered?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman sat through a great many hours in Committee, and I am sure that, if he had spotted any accidents which were likely to be in the Bill, he would have drawn attention to them.
I said that it was an historical accident that, at the time that the second force was recommended by the Edwards Committee, Caledonian/B.U.A. happened to be the only possible choice, and that was only available because Cale-

donian and B.U.A. were prepared to merge and so provide it. If that had not been so, there would have been no available candidate for this purpose.
Whether it is because of the general situation in civil aviation or for any other reason, the point that I have made continuously and continue to make is that we have made the transfers of routes which we thought necessary to the airline. In future, we shall ask the Civil Aviation Authority, on the basis of merit, to give it the preference which the Authority thinks necessary to maintain a viable second force airline. We are not prepared to go beyond that in giving any guarantees to Caledonian/B.U.A. that they have a right to demand anything else from us. I hope that I have made the situation clear to the House. I can do no more than state it quite plainly, as I have this afternoon.

4.0 p.m

Mr. Mason: Whilst the Minister's words about the positions of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are appreciated, they do not give enough recognition. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that when the Bill becomes law his words, like much of the verbiage throughout Second Reading, 16 sittings of the Committee and today, will have drifted into history. Only the Act will be read and only that will matter. So, whilst we appreciate his reference to the importance of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., it is not good enough that they have not been mentioned in the Clause.
I realise that to some extent in his judicial capacity the right hon. Gentleman must stand to one side regarding the A.T.L.B. However, he knows that the A.T.L.B. was pressured by Caledonian/B.U.A. to try to get more routes than was the intention in his general directive. The Minister also knows that the A.T.L.B. has recently, in its annual report, let him know that it is eager to help the Department to try to solve the problems of the independent airlines, the major charter operators, including Caledonian/B.U.A., who have been flouting the rules governing air fares, charter flights and affinity groupings. Yet on both counts, first, trying to breach his statement of intent and, secondly, breaching the rules governing international air fares, the Minister stands


to one side. On these occasions he should stand up and condemn such practices.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the second force emerges as an accident of timing and history. He knows that, because of the political dogma which has motivated most of his and his right hon. Friends' activities, this was the first of the hiving off operations. It is a deliberate political act to confiscate the nation's aviation assets, and the Minister

stands in the rôle of robber on behalf of the Government.

On the basis of decency and honesty and on the basis that, if this democracy is to continue, there should not be confiscation without compensation, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 191.

Division No. 398.]
AYES
[...]p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Cordon A. T,
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oram, Bert


Barnett, Joel
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, Fit, Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roper, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Sillars, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
McCann, John
Tomney, Frank


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E,
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
Marsden, F.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ford, Ben
Mayhew, Christopher
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woof, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian



Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Golding, John
Mitchell R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. Donald Coleman




NOES

Adley, Robert
Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Batsford, Brian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton




Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boscawen, Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bowden, Andrew
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bray, Ronald
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Brewis, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chataway, Rt. Hn, Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Churchill, W. S.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cockeram, Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Coombs, Derek
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Cordle, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sheet, T. H. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Longden, Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Luce, R. N.
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, lain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Steel, David


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fernner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fidler, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Foster, Sir John
Moate, Roger
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Money, Ernle
Tilney, John


Clyn, Dr. Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Green, Alan
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Grylls, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gummer, Selwyn
Neave, Airey
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilkinson, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Onslow, Cranley
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Worsley, Marcus


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, Stephen
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 21, leave out 'be controlled by United Kingdom nationals' and insert:
'have its principal place of business in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and to be controlled by persons who either are United Kingdom nationals or are for the time being approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection'.
In Committee the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) tabled an Amendment which was designed to achieve greater precision in the definition of

"British airline" in this subsection. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment was too narrowly drawn, but I am none the less grateful for his drawing attention to the definition as it appears in the Bill as being too wide in some respects and too narrow in others. As it is now drafted, the definition would include any airline anywhere in the world, using aircraft registered in any country, which happened to be controlled by United Kingdom nationals. It would not, however, include an airline based in the United Kingdom, and using British registered aircraft, which


happened to be controlled by a foreign national.
The aim here must be to define "British airline" in such a way as to correspond as closely as possible to those airlines that will be looking to the Authority, not merely for their licences, but for help and encouragement, too. I believe that the Amendment achieves that.
I should explain that under this subsection it is intended that the Secretary of State's approval will be given to those persons in respect of whom he has given his consent under Clause 22(3), or in respect of whom he has not given a direction under Clause 23(3), that is to say, to those persons who are not United Kingdom nationals, but who none the less hold an air transport licence.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: We are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has acceded to our suggestions in Committee, and we welcome the Amendment. Those who remember the debate in Committee will appreciate the rather vague definition in the Clause of a British airline. It defines a British airline as
an undertaking having power to provide air transport services and appearing"—
I emphasise the word "appearing"—
to the Authority to be controlled by United Kingdom nationals.
That definition is greatly strengthened by the Amendment, and I think that my hon. Friends will be particularly pleased with that because, as was said during the debate on the previous Amendment, it is wrong that we should be hiving off the profitable parts of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to the private sector. This is not the time to debate that principle, but it would be indefensible if there were a hiving off to foreign control of so-called British airlines which appeared to be under British control. That interpretation would be possible without the Amendment, and we are pleased that this alteration is being made.
I wonder whether the Minister has studied section 2(7) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, which contains a definition similar to the one that he has introduced by the Amendment, but perhaps a little more comprehensive. Second, what will be the position if we join the E.E.C.? Will the possible discrimination for which the right hon. Gentleman is providing by the Amendment in

favour of British nationals and British airlines be affected in any way?
Having made those observations, I conclude by welcoming the Amendment and saying that we support the right hon. Gentleman on this matter.

Mr. Noble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. All I can say at the moment in reply to his questions is that I do not think that anything that might happen if we join the E.E.C. will make any difference to the civil aviation set-up as laid down in the Bill. There is no harmonised civil aviation set-up within the E.E.C.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

SECRETARY OF STATE'S DIRECTIONS IN NATIONAL INTEREST ETC.

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 38, leave out 'or of such persons as may be specified in the order'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following Amendments; No. 6, in page 3, line 40, leave out 'or authorise another person to give'.

No. 7, in line 42, leave out 'or that person'.

No. 14, in page 17, line 38, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 39.

No. 54, in page 93, line 4, leave out 'in subsection (2)' and insert:
'the words from "or of such persons" onwards shall be omitted.
(2) In subsection (2) of that section'.

No. 55, in line 6, at end insert:
'and the words "or under the direction of" shall be omitted'.

No. 58, in page 95, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
In section 28, in subsection (1) the words from 'or of such' onwards, and in subsection (2) the words 'or under the direction of'.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those Amendments are all consequential on No. 5. Similar Amendments were discussed in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman promised to have second thoughts about them and to let us have his views on Report.
The Clause deals with the power of the Secretary of State to give directions in time of war, whether actual or imminent, or of great national emergency. It is worth bearing in mind that the phrase "great national emergency" is not defined, and therefore deserves careful scrutiny.
With the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority, we are setting up an autonomous body of expert opinion and administrative skill. It seems to us that to interpose between the Secretary of State and the authority a person who can give direction to the authority is superfluous. Perhaps I might summarise the argument, because it was dealt with comprehensively in Committee. To give power to an independent person to give the authority such directions as he thinks fit is going wider than the precedent. It is going wider than the Air Corporations Act, 1967 under which directions can be given, but only by, or with the authority of, the Secretary of State.
Second, I believe that the Secretary of State could well give such directions himself, through the normal processes of delegation, and therefore, from that point of view, it is unnecessary to interpose an independent person who can give such directions. Third, if the Secretary of State can give his own directions, there is an overwhelming advantage in securing that he does so, because he is the responsible and answerable person. Even at such times as are envisaged in Clause 4, Parliament would have a say and the Secretary of State should be answerable to the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having thought the matter over since the Committee stage, will find this acceptable. The excision of these words would strengthen the Bill, while in no way robbing the Secretary of State of worthwhile powers.

Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this matter, both in Committee and today. There was a problem that I was not clear about in Committee—whether it was necessary for some other person to be involved in this type of problem. The hon. Member was right to say that we should not place the Authority's property at the disposal of any person who is not answerable to Parliament and I promised to think carefully about this matter.
We have looked into the antecedents of these references to another person, and bearing in mind that "the Secretary of State" includes the Secretary of State for Defence, there is no practical need for them there. Therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Member and I am happy to accept the Amendment, as well as the consequential Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 40 leave out 'or authorise another person to give'.

No. 7, in line 42 leave out 'or that person'.—[Mr. John.]

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
There are several key points at which the Government can weaken the decisionmaking authority of the Civil Aviation Authority. The crux of the relationship between the Secretary of State and that Authority is Clause 4(3). My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has given some of the reasons for the Secretary of State over-ruling the Authority, but it goes even further than that. I want to know how the Authority can do its job at all if it can be over-ruled to this extent.
The Authority will not be allowed to take the initiative or to have the final say over traffic rights. How can it regulate British air transport in those circum stances? Similarly, it will have no jurisdiction, will not be able to take the initiative and will have no final say in the matter of foreign carriers. In the United States, the Civil Aeronautics Board both licenses domestic carriers and gives foreign carrier permits to British airlines, particularly independent operators.
American supplemental managements have already been accustomed to going straight to the Department of Trade and Industry, and they will continue to go over the head of the Civil Aviation Authority—and because of this subsection, the Authority will be able to do nothing about it. The Secretary of State also proposes to over-rule the Authority once more on the matter of noise. One by one, the powers of the Authority are being whittled down.
I suppose that this is a probing Amendment, to find out how the Secretary of State thinks that the Authority can do any delegated, independent job when he can over-rule it at every stage, as in subsection (3). If the Authority is to be responsible for regulating tariffs and international transport, at least it should have been able to take the initiative in I.A.T.A. negotiations. But it seems that the right hon. Gentleman has already appropriated these duties to himself.
This applies particularly to this country. We are the gateway to Europe. People from North America, South America or the Caribbean area usually come through London. Every carrier who gets a North Atlantic routing tries to route that flight through London. Anyone who operates a flight from Europe, the Middle East or the Far East to North America also goes through London. So the Authority will be in a key position on these routes, yet the Secretary of State will be able to overrule it on all these important decisions.
I move this Amendment in no political sense. I have profound political disagreements with the Minister, particularly over Clause 3(1)(b). But this is a non-political matter. The Authority should be allowed to take the initiative and to make final decisions. If one thing has bedevilled the Air Transport Licensing Board ever since its inception—it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who set it up in 1960–it is the fact that it has been over-ruled on every important decision. Only this year, when it forbade a domestic trunk fares increase in this country, the Minister's Department once more over-ruled it. If the Authority is to be over-ruled in this way, I do not see how the Minister can pretend that it will be an independent authority or that this is delegated legislation.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has put me in a dilemma, because my immediate reaction to his speech is to wish that he had been on the Committee. But I wish no such thing. I am glad that he was not on the Committee: we got on better without him. Perhaps I can resolve my dilemma by saying that, if he had read the reports of the Committee proceedings, he would not have made such a silly speech. This

matter was gone through thoroughly. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) took a close interest in this Clause and came to a worthwhile conclusion. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) also expressed himself satisfied with the Minister's assurance.
Perhaps, if the hon. Member for Nuneaton had read the reports of the Committee debates, he would not have made that speech. I cannot guarantee that he would not, because I do not know how invincible is his ignorance, but to ignore all the reasons which were then advanced is really to try the patience of the House.
Some of what the hon. Gentleman said might have been relevant to a discussion which may occur later on the subject of appeals, but to overlook the fact that these directions are to be made only after consultation with the Authority—and often they will be requested by the Authority as a necessary means of deciding how it is to discharge its functions—is to waste the time of the House, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make no more speeches of that kind.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). On the other hand, I do not want to deter the hon. Gentleman from crossing the Floor of the House after promoting a concept of freedom of operation which I am sure was never in the minds of his hon. Friends in Committee.
If the hon. Gentleman will do what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking suggested and read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee, he will find that his hon. Friends did not demand a Vote on any subject raised by the Clause, part of which he wishes to delete. He should have been kept informed by his hon. Friends about those proceedings. Indeed, I am sure that they would have welcomed the benefit of his wide experience of aviation. That might have avoided our having to spend all this time at this stage on a subject which was discussed fully in Committee.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton is suggesting, in effect, that there should be


a free for all. I would have thought that even in his meekest political mantle he would not have suggested that, especially to people outside this House. We are seeking by the Clause to ensure that the total national interests of the country are covered in every way necessary, something which I am sure his party would wish to have within their control should they ever be elected—that is, within their control after consultation with the C.A.A. Surely we do not wish to limit the C.A.A. in the carrying out of this function.
The hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is not just a matter of the C.A.A. negotiating fares, for on an international scale these matters are discussed with B.O.A.C. and the other airlines in I.A.T.A.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I would hate the hon. Gentleman and anybody else to think that I was ever in favour of a free for all. I was trying to make the point— I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) know this only too well— that if Clause 3 (1)(b) is read in conjunction with Clause 4(3) and in conjunction with Clause 24(2) and Clause 27(6), one sees that the Minister has a fairly free hand.

Mr. Warren: I am delighted to hear that, because my right hon. Friend needs a free hand to carry out these tasks. I am not sure about the cross-references to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I take his word about them, at least for now.
It is the C.AA.'s job to act within the total negotiating problem that the Government have, both through the airlines negotiating their fares, as they are currently doing in Montreal, and through the Foreign Office negotiating traffic rights. I am sure that the Minister is thinking in terms of his ability to facilitate the work of the C.A.A., and the Clause is not intended to hinder that work. This is an important point which the hon. Member for Nuneaton overlooked.
When one considers that Clause 4(3)(f) deals with the prevention of
noise, vibration, pollution or other disturbance attributable to aircraft used for the purpose of civil aviation

it is surprising that the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a keen interest in air safety, wishes to hinder such preventive work.
The hon. Gentleman used a subtle simile when he said that we did not want to "whittle away" at the work that was going on. He could not have chosen a better simile in terms of noise. I am sure that the House as a whole will not hesitate to endorse the Secretary of State's facility to consult and, if necessary, direct, in this matter.

Mr. Robert Adley: I support what my hon. Friends have said on this issue and I remind the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) of the phrase "routes subject to Government approval" which he must have seen on many timetables. The Minister may wish to confirm that that in most cases means approval by the Government and not by a board such as the C.A.A.
It would be a dangerous practice if we were to remove from the Minister his ability to take the sort of action envisaged under the Clause, and I am particularly thinking of what is likely to happen when Concorde starts operating.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should go over to the sort of system that exists in the United States, where it is well known that there are "political airlines"? If a particular airline has contributed substantially to a party in America and that party happens to get elected, that airline will be favoured by new routes from the government in power. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should adopt that system?

Mr. Adley: The answer is clearly "No". I was simply suggesting that there may be occasions when the Minister may need to use the power that this provision will confer on him, and I therefore support the retention in the Bill of the provision which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to delete.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) suggested that Clause 4(3)(f) will give the Minister a free hand
in order to prevent or deal with noise, vibration, pollution or other disturbance attributable


to aircraft used for the purpose of civil aviation.
Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he will have a free hand under this provision?

Mr. Noble: I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and, while I do not entirely disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, I appreciate that in the busy lives we lead in Parliament, it is not always easy to read all the reports of all the Committees in which we are interested.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman regards this as a probing Amendment. I hope I will not bore those who took part in the Committee proceedings on the Bill if I make albeit a short speech, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Nuneaton, in the form of a summary of what was said in Committee, where there was a much wider ranging debate on this matter.
I made it clear on Second Reading, as I did in Committee, that the Government must remain directly responsible for national security, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Nuneaton accepts that. There are also two other questions, international relations and the environment. I believe that this is essential because only the Government and Parliament can be responsible for national security or can formally commit the United Kingdom internationally on this and similar issues. It would be wrong, therefore, to allow a body which is primarily concerned with the interests of the industry and its users to be responsible for amenity matters, and especially aircraft noise, which is the point to which the hon. Gentleman wanted me to allude. This means that the Government must have the necessary powers to implement their responsibilities in this sphere.
The Authority will, however, have a most important rôle to play in a very wide range of fields. For example, it will be granting air transport licences in respect of international services. It will be participating in, and, I hope, in many cases, leading, international negotiations. It will, because of its responsibility for technical regulation, play an important part in the aircraft noise certification scheme. In all these and in other cases the Authority and my Department will be working in close collaboration.
The fact remains, nevertheless, that if there was ever a difference of view between the Government and the Authority, the Government's view must prevail. I am sure that this is not likely to occur often. If it were to happen, however, the Authority should be entitled to require a specific direction to which it could point in its annual report.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made a somewhat unprovoked personal attack on me, he may care to know that it was at the conclusion of reading an article in Flight International of 17th June last that I persisted in going ahead with my Amendment. In that journal was a report of what had transpired in Committee on this Measure—and who better than the hon. Member for Woking to have written it? After reading the whole thing—I do the hon. Gentleman the justice of bringing it into the Chamber—I am still none the wiser. Had he seen fit to explain some of the changes in the article, perhaps I would not have had to persist with the Amendment this afternoon. However, despite the assurance given by the Minister, I cannot understand why, for instance, some more authority, especially over foreign airlines, cannot be given to the Civil Aviation Authority. If we are to have a situation in which domestic carriers will obtain their licence from the Civil Aviation Authority, yet foreign carriers have to go to the Department of Trade and Industry, it seems that this will be one more encouragement to all airlines to go over the heads of the Authority.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS RESPECTS CERTAIN FUNCTIONS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 19, leave out
'of its disclosure to the prospective recipient'
and insert:
to the public and the prospective recipient of its disclosure to him'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it would be for the convenience of the


House to discuss Amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 9, leave out:
'of its disclosure to the relevant person'
and insert:
'to the public and the relevant person of its disclosure to him'.

Mr. Millan: The Clause deals among other things, with the question of disclosure of information. The Clause is expressed in very wide terms, but we understood from the Minister in Committee that he would be making regulations on such matters as the initial grant of a certificate of air worthiness to a new aircraft, revocation of an air operator's certificate, or the grant or refusal of an air transport licence in a contested case. On the last matter we have rather more detailed provision later in the Bill, but in all these matters there is a question of how much information should be made available not just to an interested party but generally to an interested public.
It has been a recurring complaint about the way in which air transport is regulated in this country that the amount of information made available publicly contrasts rather badly with that made available in other countries, for example, the United States of America. It seems to us, in those circumstances, looking at this Clause and Clause 24, which deals with air transport licensing, that the wording was misconstrued, because it was setting the rights of the person who had given the information to the Authority against the rights of another person, perhaps an objector in the case of an air transport licence, and was asking whether there was greater advantage in letting the information be known to the second person than disadvantage in letting it be known to the first person in so doing.
In Committee we argued that what one was leaving out, if that was the approach —as it seemed to be—was the general public interest. We said that as well as mentioning the person who gave the information and the prospective recipient, there was a need to put in the Bill some mention of the general public interest in having as much information as possible made available by the Civil Aviation Authority. In Committee we moved an Amendment with that kind of object, but not quite in those terms, and the Minister said that he had some sympathy with the points which we had in mind but

that he did not consider that the Amendment was the right way of achieving the objective.
The new Amendment is another attempt at rewording this Clause and Clause 24 to bring in the basic point that there is a general public interest in all the information which comes to the Authority and in its disclosure. I understand that the Minister is happy with the wording now contained in the Amendment. This is an important point, and if the Minister is willing to accept the Amendment, it will improve the Bill in an important regard and" will make those interested in the operations of the Authority much happier that a good deal of information will be made available to them and to the general public, so that we can see what the Authority is doing and the kind of information upon which it is basing its very important decisions.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member for Craigton (Mr. Millan) has again made the points which he made very well in Committee. I told him then that I had a great deal of sympathy with the object which he was trying to achieve. As he suspected, his second go at an Amendment is entirely acceptable to me. The object that he wants to attain is right because it takes into account the public interest. I am grateful to him for putting down the Amendment, which I am glad to accept.

Amendment agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move, Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the obstacles faced by people who wish to make representations are already quite daunting in many fields, and that it is unnecessary, on reflection, for him to increase their task by laying them open to the possibility that if they fail in their representations they may be mulcted very substantially in costs and expenses of the other party, a matter over which they would have no control. To keep these words in the Bill would have a serious deterrent effect on the freedom of the public and the consumer to make representations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the words can be removed without loss to the public interest.

Mr. Noble: Today the proceedings are following rather closely those in Committee, where, if sensible points were made, I did my best to consider them and if possible, to accept them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down the Amendment, and to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who first raised the subject of the Amendment.
There has never been an award of costs under the existing system and there is no policy reason for wishing the Authority to be able to award costs. In any case, a fee could be charged for any application form or to revoke or vary a licence, and this could be sufficient to deter frivolous applications. I am happy to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

THE INITIAL DEBT

Mr. Noble: I beg to move. Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 35, leave out '£35 million' and insert '£50 million'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With Amendment No. 11 it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 12 and 51.

Mr. Noble: When the Committee was considering the amount of the Authority's initial capital debt, I explained that we had not yet been able to decide what basis to adopt for the valuation of the assets to be transferred to the Authority. This is a difficult question, especially in the present case, for reasons which I shall explain. I fear that we have still not reached a decision on the matter. The purpose of this Amendment and Amendment No. 12 is, therefore, no more than to set maximum figures for the initial debt and borrowing limit of the Authority high enough to cover any of the possible bases of valuation which might be adopted. The purpose of Amendment No. 51 is to avoid tying the Authority for tax purposes to a basis which might not, in the event, be adopted for purposes of valuation.
The problem is one which has been of some concern to the Public Accounts Committee, which was rightly anxious that assets should not be transferred from the Government to another body at a figure below their current value and

consequently representing in effect the giving of a concealed subsidy. By the same token, although it is not suggested that this has ever happened in practice, the value should not be so high as to represent the imposition of a concealed tax. These are important points of principle, and to judge by what the hon. Member for Craigton and I said in Committee, it seems that both sides of the House are in agreement on them.
The difficulty so far as concerns the Authority is to determine what basis of valuation would be neither too low nor too high in this context, given the particular nature of the assets to be transferred. The assets fall mainly into two groups. First, there are the aerodromes in Scotland consisting of land, runways and other facilities, together with other parcels of land, often very small and in inaccessible places, on which beacons and other pieces of equipment have been placed. Second, there are the specialised radars or other forms of equipment used for traffic control and navigational purposes.
So far as concerns these two main categories of assets, because of their specialised nature there is no market in the ordinary sense in which their disposal value can be measured, while their alternative use values, where there is an alternative use, give no guide to their value in their present use. Replacement cost is not a satisfactory criterion, as a large part of the assets, such as radar sets, are unlikely to be replaceable by similar equipment.
Nor does the earning power of the assets provide an answer. The Authority will initially be in receipt of substantial subventions from public funds, although we intend it eventually to become self-supporting. In any case, the Authority does not have complete control over the level of its earnings, because they are in part dependent on international agreement on user charges. If we adopted earning power as a basis of valuation, the economic value of the assets to the Authority would be nil.
This leaves two possibilities. Either one accepts the widely used and well understood present convention of written down book values based on historical costs or one starts from this but allows for the effects of inflation on the value of the assets since they were acquired at


the time they are transferred. Both of these methods are abitrary—I think that is inevitable in the circumstances—but we have not yet been able to decide which is the more appropriate or, perhaps I should say, the less inappropriate, as a measure of the assets' present worth in their present use in the very special circumstances of this particular case. Clearly, this is something which we shall have to decide well before the transfer takes place.
If we do adopt the latter basis—that is, the net book values adjusted by price indices—it is likely that a higher aggregate figure than £35 million would result, though perhaps not as high as the £50 million we now propose as the outside limit. If it turned out to be something like £50 million, I readily accept that we should need to revise the date by which the Authority could reasonably be expected to become self-supporting and, instead of allowing five years for this, we should need to allow anything up to seven or eight years.
There is an additional complication which needs to be borne in mind. Most of the income of the Authority will eventually derive from a charge for navigation services, and that charge will be calculated on an internationally agreed basis which at present adopts written down book values.
As I have said—perhaps my explanation has served to confirm this—this is a particularly difficult problem and I seek the indulgence of the House for the fact that I am not yet ready with a solution. It is something which I am sure that we should do our best to resolve as fairly as we can. I trust that the House will accord us further time in which do to this, by agreeing to the Amendments, which are designed to keep both options open.
I shall listen with care to any views that hon. Members may wish to express on a problem which is a difficult one both for us and for the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Millan: The Minister has given us a very interesting disquisition on the difficulties of the valuation of the assets to be transferred to the Authority. Without necessarily going all the way with everything that the right hon. Gentleman

said—we shall want to consider his statement carefully when we see it in print—I readily accept, as we on this side accepted in Committee, that this is a very difficult problem and that there is no absolutely obvious way of valuing these assets.
The change in figures which the right hon. Gentleman now recommends the House to accept would have—or at least may have—very serious effects for the Authority's financial viability. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman explained that the figure of £35 million was arrived at on the basis of historical cost value. He then said this:
As the figures came out, the cost of the fixed assets was about £42 million, less depreciation of £14 million, bringing the amount down to £28 million. Adding on a contribution to the Ministry of Defence on the Linesmen of £4 million and current assets of £2–£5 million brings the figure to £34–5 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 6th May, 1971; c. 262.]
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we had tabled a probing Amendment in Committee seeking to eliminate any reference to a figure, because we did not quite understand why there should be a figure in the Bill and we were more concerned with getting a basis of valuation stated in the Bill than with determining in advance what figure would be likely on the basis of that method of valuation. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be fairly confident then, not that he had necessarily got the absolutely right figure, that this would be the kind of valuation we would be talking about.
It is important to know what the figure is, because Clause 6(1) lays this responsibility upon the Authority:
It shall be the duty of the Authority so to conduct its affairs as to secure that its revenue is not less than sufficient to meet charges properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another.
That is a fairly familiar form of terminology in the various nationalised industries Statutes.
Some of us pointed out in Committee that it seemed to us to be, at least in the earlier stages, a rather unrealistic objective to set the Authority. The Minister admitted that this was so, that we were giving this general objective to the Authority in the Bill but that in practice it was not to be expected that the Authority would be able to reach the position


of economical working until perhaps about five or six years after its inception.
I mention these points to bring out the fact that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the whole matter. First, the Authority is set an objective: the duty is laid on the Authority to pay its way. However, it is admitted by the Minister that the Authority will not be able to pay its way for five or six years. We are not even clear, because some of these matters of air navigation charges, and so on, are subject to international adjustment, whether the Authority will ever be able to pay its way. So in this respect the Bill provides something which may turn out to be unrealistic.
Second, the initial debt is important in this regard, because interest will be payable on this debt, which was in at £35 million up to the Committee stage but which is now, if the Amendment is agreed to, to be £50 million. This is another area of uncertainty, We understood that the figure of £35 million, although not completely accurate, at least represented as accurately as possible what the figure was likely to be. We are now told that it should be £50 million, but we are not sure whether the eventual figure will be anything like £50 million: the figure is put in so that the Government can be on the safe side.
The third area of uncertainty is that the Minister has said that the basis of valuation is very difficult to determine, that there are all sorts of factors which might be taken into account, and that he has not made up his mind about it yet. So we have no guidance on the basis of valuation.
This is unsatisfactory. It is not fair to the House. It will not be fair to the Authority if the legislation states nothing more than this, assuming that the Amendment is agreed to.
In Committee we proposed that the Bill should prescribe a basis for valuation. We were not at that stage dogmatic about what the basis should be. We knew that the Public Accounts Committee had views about this in relation to other statutory authorities. However, we wanted there to be a provision in the Bill at which we could look to decide whether it seemed reasonable to the Authority and to the Government who are transferring the assets.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that, even if he is not able to state this basis of valuation now, he will make every effort to have it put in by means of an Amendment in the other place so that at least we know what the basis of valuation will be. It is much better that it should be in the Act than that we should be merely told about the difficulties and that the Government have not yet been able to solve them.
5.0 p.m.
Second, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at Clause 6, dealing with the general financial duties of the Authority. It is becoming more and more unrealistic to have the duties of the Authority expressed in the form in which they are now expressed. In Committee we moved that there should be a qualifying phrase in Clause 6 to say that the Authority would be obliged to pay its way as soon as practicable. We were told that that was not a very useful way of amending the Clause, but some kind of qualifying phrase should be inserted, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that at least he will consider that when the Bill is in another place.
Third, the right hon. Gentleman might publicise rather more widely the point he has just made that if the new figure is entered in the Bill, and it becomes anything like the burden which the Authority will have to take on, it will be seven or eight years, and perhaps even longer, before the Authority is expected to pay its way. He knows that the airlines, like B.O.A.C., which issued a statement last week, are extremely concerned at the additional burden that may fall on them if the Authority is bound to pay its way and if a number of financial responsibilities now borne directly by the Government are to be borne by them.
We should treat our airlines in a way comparable to the way in which other countries treat theirs. I said in Committee that there was no argument for saying that as a permanent arrangement the airline passengers should be subsidised. Therefore, if the general principle is that eventually the airline passengers should pay for these things, I would not. go against that. But we should not place our national flag carriers at a disadvantage compared with other airlines. Before


we agree to the figure proposed being included in the Clause, we should have a pledge that that is a principle to which the Government will attach importance once the Authority has been established.

Mr. Noble: I will do my best, but I cannot promise, to resolve this particularly difficult problem before the Bill leaves Parliament. I accept, and I think the hon. Gentleman does, the general principle which the Public Accounts Committee has enunciated that where assets are being transferred in normal cases their valuation should take account of inflation since they were originally acquired.
Here we are dealing with a most unusual type of operation. The problem is that the assets are not making any money or are not likely to do so for a long time. They have possibly no value whatever if they are removed from what they are doing, and there is not even a fire insurance value. There is no basis on which I can find an easy method of saying to the Public Accounts Committee or hon. Members, "This is a fair valuation."
We have thought a great deal about the matter and shall do our best to come to a conclusion. If we can, we will include it before the Bill leaves Parliament.
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about Clause 6 and will consider it. I very much appreciate his point about our national carriers being treated differently from others with regard to air navigation charges in the present highly competitive international world. These are matters that are decided internationally. I shall try to see that our carriers are treated in the same way as those of other nations.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The Minister has missed some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). My hon. Friend was not exactly saying that the internationally-fixed charges were the problem here. The problem was the additional charges on top of the internationally-negotiated charges.
We accept, and airlines accept, that national regulatory bodies, particularly those concerned with air traffic control, have a right to get back from airlines some of the money for the air traffic

control services they provide. But it would appear that, on top of those internationally-fixed charges, B.O.A.C. and our other national carriers will have to bear some of the administrative charges which in other systems are either borne by the taxpayer or are financed in some other way. For instance, B.O.A.C. already contributes about 25 per cent. of the total cost of the Air Transport Licensing Board and 17 per cent. of the total cost of the Air Registration Board, as well as about 7 per cent. of the Secretary of State's recovered expenses in respect of air navigation services. If airlines like B.O.A.C. will, in addition, have to pay further administrative charges for the Civil Aviation Authority, that is an unfair and cripplng burden on our major national carriers.
My hon. Friend said that he would have no objection to airline passengers' bearing the full proportion of total costs attributable to the services provided for them. But that is not the precedent which has been adopted with other forms of transport. For example, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office provide various services at the taxpayer's expense for road users and other transport users. Already the taxpayer is subsidising existing forms of surface transport. It does not seem particularly unfair to extend that principle into air transport.
Before we move on to the next Amendment, I should like the Minister to give us some reassurance on the kind of financial burden airlines like B.O.A.C. will have to carry. If we are to increase the value of the air traffic control service assets and still expect the C.A.A. to break even in six years, B.O.A.C. might be asked to bear even more than the 3 per cent. of its annual revenue now being forcecast. That, on top of the £6 million from its annual revenue which is already being shed, is a big burden.

Mr. Noble: I made the point—the hon. Gentleman may have missed it— that what we propose is simply to keep both options until we make up our mind on what is the right and fair valuation, and that, if we increased it, it would clearly be necessary to increase the amount of time the C.A.A. had to break even from five to seven or eight years, so that in that respect there would be no extra charge on B.O.A.C.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about the kind of burden a carrier like B.O.A.C. will ultimately have to bear?

Mr. Noble: I cannot at this stage. There are calculations that could be made, but they would be much too wide to be worth giving to the House as a general guide. The problem, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) appreciated both in Committee and today, is that we have to strike a balance between what is given as a subsidy to air passengers by non-air passengers and what is sensible in the national interest in relation to what other major airlines are bearing. That is a balance which we must strike when the time comes.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Authority has taken the equipment and property outlined in Schedule 2, now costing £50 million? It may be saddled with a lot of clapped-out equipment or aeronautical bangers. Is there any appeal against having to take it over? If so, who decides on the valuation?

Mr. Noble: I think I gave the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer in Committee—that we would not attempt to transfer to the Authority anything which it did not want and which was not being used.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

BORROWING POWERS

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 7, line 36, leave out '£60 million' and insert '£75 million'.—[Mr. Noble.]

Clause 11

PAYMENTS TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 2, after 'Treasury', insert:
'and after consultation with the Authority',
Hon Members opposite originally sought to insert a statutory obligation to consult the Authority. They sought to do so in Clause 6(3), which deals with the question of establishment, manage-

ment and application of the Authority's reserves. I had to resist that because of the implications for similar provisions in other Statutes. I recognise, however, that the Bill rightly provides for such consultation in Clause 52, which deals also with specific application of the reserves to the British Airways Board group, and it would be consistent, therefore, to insert a statutory requirement for consultation with the Authority in Clause 11(2), which deals with a very similar application of reserves.

Mr. John: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. We particularly pressed for this provision in Commitee and I am glad that he has seen fit to accede to our request. It seems to us important that the Authority should be consulted on these matters and we feel that this will be a better Bill for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 17, line 38, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 39.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 20

ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 18, line 7 after '24(2)' insert 'or section 28(2)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 18, in page 18, line 16 at end insert:
(c) shall include details of all directives by the Secretary of State.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield).

Mr. Noble: The purpose of Clause 20(2)(a) is to ensure that public attention is drawn to any directions which the Secretary of State may give the Authority which might affect the independence of the Authority's regulatory decisions. I therefore accept that it is right and proper


that all directions of significance from a policy point of view should be published in its annual report. This will be achieved by adding, by means of this Amendment, the references to the directions under Clause 28(2) which will establish the terms of reference of the National Air Traffic Services.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the question of directions to the Civil Aviation Authority by the Secretary of State is a very important matter, because we are not dealing here with any kind of international situation of perfect or free competition. We are dealing with a situation of highly cartelised competition and highly regulated competition—regulated to most countries' advantage. Consequently, the directions which any Secretary of State gives to the national regulating body are of the utmost importance, because they show the extent to which the regulating body is forced to deviate from the normal competitive mechanism.
I have always felt, however, that the full relationship between the Government and the regulating body should be fully publicised, and this is why I put down Amendment No. 18. Although in the past we have had some intimations of the kind of relationships which have existed between the Secretary of State and British airlines, and between the Secretary of State and the Air Transport Licensing Board, I feel that communications and directions from the Secretary of State to the Civil Aviation Authority should be publicised.
The fact is that the Bill, particularly in Clauses 3, 4, 24 and 27 gives the Secretary of State a tremendous amount of power. I think it can be said that the Authority will be a fine example of delegated legislation, and it will also be said that the Authority will have a tremendous amount of independence and authority. I want to see precisely the extent and the quality of that autonomy and independence which the Authority may be allowed to enjoy.
5.15 p.m.
I feel that the only way in which we can all be allowed to see the precise quality of the Authority's independence is for all directions and communications from the Secretary of State to be openly

published. I think we all recognise that Governments reserve the right to regulate their own licensing systems to their own advantage: the Americans, the Canadians and Australians in particular do this. Indeed, many countries do it far more than we do. But if we are to divert the Authority to anything from the normal competitive system, in which ordinary market rules and regulations operate, I should like this to be public knowledge and not just a not-too-well kept secret between the Secretary of State and the Authority.

Mr. Millan: I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has said. We argued the point in Committee. It was said there—and I accept this to some extent—that many of the directions which may be given to the Authority will be rather formal in nature and some will be rather lengthy, and that there will be no great amount of enlightenment for any of us if they are all to be written out in detail in the Authority's annual report. It was, therefore, our objective to achieve the situation where the most important directions at least would be publicised in the annual report, even if we could not achieve the object of having all the directions, publicised in it.
One of those to which we attach importance is the one now covered by Amendment No. 15–the arrangement under Clause 28(2) for the organisation of the joint National Air Traffic Services. I think that it was I who suggested in Committee that this was a direction that should go into the annual report, since it is an important one and not something which will happen as a matter of form every year. I suggested that there was no question of burdening the annual report with this matter. I am, therefore, grateful to the Minister for accepting that suggestion and introducing Amendment No. 15. Without necessarily going all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton on this, there are a number of other directions that I should have preferred, on balance, to have included in the annual report, but if the Minister is not willing to do so, I think that Amendment No. 15 is at least an important step forward and we are grateful for it.

Mr. Noble: By leave of the House, I will reply. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). What we have tried to do, as a result of the useful discussion in Committee, is to ensure that, in cases where general directions are given which could affect the discretion of the Authority on issues of importance, these should be incorporated in the annual report. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are a number of general directions which are given of the sort which, for example, state the way in which the annual accounts should be be maintained, and so on. Such directions are purely housekeeping, as it were and it would be exceedingly boring for everyone if they all had to be included in the annual report. Between us we have the right balance and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment. I cannot go all the way with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) on Amendment No. 18 because this would inevitably clutter up the annual report with a great deal of stuff which would be of no interest to anyone.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 16, in page 18, line 9, after '4', insert 'or 28(2)'.

Mr. Noble: I beg to move, Amendment No. 17, in page 18, line 11 at end insert:
(b) shall include particulars of any case in which during that year the Authority has decided not to proceed in accordance with advice given to it in pursuance of section 27(3)(a)(i) of this Act;
This Amendment gives effect to an assurance I gave in Committee that we should require any difference of view between the Authority and the Airworthiness Requirements Board as to airworthiness standards and the extent to which new aircraft types satisfied them to be published in the Authority's annual report. This was a point urged on me from both sides of the Committee. I believe that it is right and in accordance with what the Committee wanted and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Millan: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it was pressed upon the Government in Committee, by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) as well as by my hon. Friends, that a provision of the sort now included in Amendment

No. 17 should be written into the Bill. The Amendment is expressed in slightly restrictive terms because it refers to Section 27(3)(a)(i). There is no reference to Section 27(3)(a)(ii), including matters on which the Airworthiness Requirements Board may give advice to the Authority. These are matters which appear to the Board, as distinct from the Authority, to relate to
… the standards mentioned in the preceding subsection.
that is the standards dealing with airworthiness requirements, the basic function of the new A.R.B.
I would have preferred on the whole that we had just said Section 27(3)(a), thus including (i) and (ii) as being among the matters which would be stated in the Authority's annual report if there were disagreement between the Authority and the Board.
Nevertheless, the Amendment goes most of the way towards meeting what was asked of the Government in Committee. It deals with most of the matters about which the A.R.B. is likely to be advising the Authority, and any really important matters in dispute are likely to be covered. There will be a rather delicate relationship, in a constitutional sense although not in a working sense we hope, between the A.R.B. and the Civil Aviation Authority. This Amendment helps to strengthen the Board in a way that the House as a whole would wish.
If there are disagreements about matters arising under Section 27 (3)(a)(ii), whether or not in the Authority's annual report, the industry being what it is, the relationship of the Board being what it is—and we hope that its members will be drawn from distinguished individuals within the industry—it will become known that these are genuine differences of opinion and that there is no question of the Authority trying to diminish the responsibilities that we are pressing on the Board. I am not entirely happy that this goes far enough, but it goes so far along the road that we wanted the Government to travel that it would be churlish not to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Amendment.

Mr. Onslow: I too am grateful to my right hon. Friend for virtually accepting the arguments underlying the Amendment


which stood in my name in Committee and which received the support of both sides. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied about this? Suppose a query arises about the airworthiness of a type which has already been certificated and which comes up for renewal of certification? Will the formula be sufficient to enable a clash between the two sides to be brought out effectively? The pressure for the renewal of a certification of a type already in service, from the commercial point of view, is likely to be infinitely greater than that relating to any other type, even than for a new type, because the numbers of aircraft involved will be considerable and the number of operators who would stand to find their operations inhibited if the aircraft were uncertificated would be substantial and something with which to be reckoned.
It is conceivable that the Civil Aviation Authority might not be obliged under (3)(a)(i) to consult the Board but the Board nevertheless would feel that it had some important advice which it should put to the Authority. I hope that this is not too fine a point for my right hon. Friend to deal with, although I realise that I have not given him notice of it. I trust that this provision will never be used. Should there be a case of disagreement between the Board and the Authority it would be an unhappy state of affairs, showing that the system we had established was not working as we hoped. It will be by sensible, give-and-take and rational discussions between the experts —adult and level-headed men—that all the provisions embodied in the legislation will work. If we do not have such people to carry out the task it does not matter what is in the legislation. Perhaps it is not reasonable to insist on the print being too fine, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for building into the Bill what might be regarded as a deterrent.

Mr. Noble: By leave of the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) for his remarks. The only reason we did not go the whole way with the Amendment, which he suggested might be preferable, is that we are hoping that the Airworthiness Requirements Board will be consulted not just about airworthiness but about a number of matters, as it has been

regularly consulted by my Department. If any disagreement had to be recorded it might make it more difficult for the Civil Aviation Authority to feel it could go and discuss matters of more general importance. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that any question of airworthiness would be covered, so that his point is fully met.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

RESTRICTION OF UNLICENSED CARRIAGE BY AIR FOR REWARD

Mr. Noble: I beg to move, Amendment No. 19, in page 18, line 37, after "territory ", insert "or an associated state".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would be convenient if at the same time we also discussed Amendments Nos. 20 and 22.

Mr. Noble: These three Amendments are linked. They do not refer to something which was raised in Committee and at which I promised to look. They relate to a technical detail which came to light after studying the Bill more carefully in Committee when we realised that associated States had not been properly included. Associated States include such countries as Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. This is merely to regulate their position in the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 20, in page 20, line 10, after "territory", insert "or an associated state".—[Mr. Noble.]

Clause 22

GRANT AND REFUSAL OF AIR TRANSPORT LICENCES

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Mason: I beg to move, Amendment No. 21, in page 21, line 9, at end insert:
(2) An application for the grant of an air transport licence shall include a statement by the applicant that he is in membership of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport or an undertaking that he will take up membershipj of that body in the event of his application being granted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 23, in page 22, line 48, at end insert:
(3) It shall be the duty of the Authority to revoke a licence if the Authority is not or is no longer satisfied that the holder of the licence is in membership of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport.

Mr. Mason: From my experience of civil aviation I have always felt that the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport could play a more important rôle than hitherto. One of the major difficulties is that it is not fully representative of the civil aviation industry. On Second Reading I drew the House's attention to our views on the C.A.A. and its relationship with the N.J.C.:
I hope the Government will also take note of the Chapter on Human Relations in our White Paper and that when the Civil Aviation Authority is satisfying that an airline has adequate financial resources, competent management and the ability to operate safely before a licence is granted, it will also be satisfied about industrial relations and will not grant a licence unless there are also proper negotiating procedures and consultative machinery established.
Once the Civil Aviation Authority is in being, it will be necessary to have a national trade union and management forum of equal importance. This should be the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. This, as we all know, is not fully representative of the industry at present. But, if we are to have planned orderly growth of all our civil aviation transport, then the Civil Aviation Authority should be advised at the outset to recognise the National Joint Council and decree that all its airlines become members of it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1195.]
Hence, the two Amendments we are discussing now.
Most hon. Members will recognise that the joint management-union forum which the Civil Aviation Authority should recognise at the outset is the N.J.C. as being the best organisation to promote the development of close consultative arrangements with everyone in the industry. We pressed this very strongly on Second Reading.
I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State is now able to participate in the debate. He said on Second Reading:
The Authority, as an expert professional body, separate from the Government, may be expected to develop close consultative arrangements with the industry which it will be regulating.

That being so, why not the N.J.C? I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not go further and say that that would be the intention. He said, later:
Caledonian/B.U.A. is now in full membership of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport and thus is a party to the same negotiating procedures as the air corporations. This brings employees of British airlines within the N.J.C. machinery …
That is not true. Caledonian/B.U.A. may be members of the N.J.C, but there are many British airlines which are not members of it. The Under-Secretary of State went on:
… and the Government see no justification for introducing statutory obligations bearing in mind the variations in rôle and scale of operations of different airlines.
Indeed, that is one reason why they should all be in. Finally, the Under-Secretary of State said:
Moreover employers who cannot afford proper standards for their staff, taking into account the scale and type of their operation are clearly unlikely to be the sort of employers who will succeed in persuading the C.A.A. that they have satisfied the requirement for entitlement to operate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1971; Vol 814, c. 1274–5.]
Do I take it from that comment that the hon. Gentleman is serious in saying that the C.A.A. is likely to refuse licences to operate to some of those operators? This is the nub of our argument. We are not satisfied how clear in the mind of the Minister is this question of the N.J.C. being recognised by the C.A.A.
We all know that initially the N.J.C. deals with terms of employment, wages and working conditions, but safety is involved, too. These matters are interlinked and cannot be separated. We therefore think it sensible that, as a prerequisite for a licence, all civil aviation operators who apply for a licence should at the outset be informed that they must become members of the N.J.C. It would then be incumbent upon the N.J.C. to see that a basic ground level of terms and conditions for all employees was initiated and then accepted.
We also say, that having been established, that if any operators left the N.J.C. they must be made aware that their licences would be in jeopardy. We fear that the C.A.A. may recognise and grant licences to shoestring operators and ignore the N.J.C., as will the small operators, and that this will result in


industrial turmoil and a threat to civil aviation safety.
That is our case. We think that all this can be avoided by the joint management-union forum of the N.J.C. laying down minimum conditions, so that the industry could progress, and by the C.A.A. using the N.J.C. to ensure that safety is the paramount factor in the minds of all those who work within the industry.

Mr. Russell Kerr: As one who has not always seen eye to eye with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on certain matters in the Bill, it is a great pleasure to me warmly to commend the Amendment to the House. It deals with the nub of the problem, and I sincerely compliment my right hon. Friend on the terms in which he has moved it.
As anyone experienced in the industry will confirm, the industry has, by and large, been fortunate in the way its affairs have been run and, in particular, in the successful rôle the N.J.C. for Civil Air Transport has played during the last 20 years. Both sides of the industry have found the N.J.C. to be extremely worth while, and it has been responsible for the relative lack of tensions and the good industrial relations within this great industry.
The N.J.C. has also played a big part in the undoubted esprit de corps of the industry. Certainly, until hon. Gentlemen opposite started to repay their political debts by one or two of the more contentious proposals contained in the Bill, it was an organisation to which the industry collectively owed a great deal. The N.J.C. has been responsible for the planned growth of the industry over the years and, until a new Government takes over and we are able to do a bit of sorting out, to put it politely, I hope that it will continue to play a large part.
So long as we have this bastard child amongst us I hope we shall not hesitate to make it a condition of its birth and upbringing that it shall be forced to play its full part in the industry and in the body which has effectively supervised the industry and made it successful over the years. I therefore warmly commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Warren: I have much sympathy with the Amendment, but from my experience of union negotiations in the airline industry I feel that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is seeking to put forward something as a substitute for the absence of good leadership in the industry. I know that the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) is conscious of these problems in the industry and he has rightly stressed esprit de corps, but we must remember that it is only by good leadership from management that esprit de corps will be realised in the practical way.
Many problems encountered in the last decade in certain airlines in this country have perhaps occurred because the management leadership has not been as good as it ought to have been. This has been particularly noticeable in respect of the problems facing pilots and crews. I would equate the need for a better relationship through the N.J.C. with the need for an even better standard of management in the leadership of the airlines. It may sound heretical when speaking from this side of the House, but I do not believe that we can get good human relations entirely by regulations. This is one reason why I support the Government's industrial relations proposals as opposed to the much more penal and severe proposals put forward by the previous Government.
I feel it is unnecessary to look to the National Joint Council to guard us in terms of the safety of operations in the airlines. This is the job of the Airworthiness Requirements Board rather rather than the N.J.C. By all means let us look to the N.J.C. to make sure nothing is overlooked, but let us not impose on it a duty which should be undertaken, and indeed will be undertaken, by other people. The problems of "shoe-string" operators are matters for the C.A.A. not for the N.J.C. This is the mistake that has been made in the Amendment, though I recognise that the Amendment has merits.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have sympathy with a good deal of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) on the contribution made by the N.J.C. to good relations in the aviation industry. We should make


every effort to further its work. I believe that this can be better carried out inside the industry than imposed by Statute. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would be justified in writing into the Bill an obligation that there should be membership of the N.J.C.; this would fly in a contrary direction to what we have been seeking to do in recent weeks. Pressure of legislation on this subject could have an adverse effect. What is desirable is growth from inside by example rather than by precept.
There is something of a mixed record of labour relations in civil aviation. People who travel in these summer months feel rather surprised that it is often at this time of the year that trouble takes place in the industry. It is almost as though this period were selected to embarrass those who are going on holiday to make sure that they are put to the maximum inconvenience. This is not at times a very happy state of affairs. I would certainly support anything that can be done to prevent this happening in an industry where people are very well paid and where esprit de corps is very good.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that those passengers who are going on holiday are often far more inconvenienced when they get to their destination and find that some of the hotel and bathroom facilities, which the hotel and tourist trade have said they would guarantee just do not exist?

Mr. Lewis: No, on the contrary. The truth is that the people who are inconvenienced when they get to their destination—as occasionally happens, and deplorably so—are the exceptions. The cases often get headlines in the newspapers because they are exceptional; they often happen once or twice in the course of a season. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that it is often due to lack of effort by a foreign hotelier who has nothing to do with the operator at this end. It is often something the operator cannot control. Nevertheless, tour operators must have regard to this matter and some are now giving absolute guarantees to cover the difficulties which are so often encountered with foreign hotels. However, in this Bill we are not dealing with foreign

hoteliers or with foreign airlines; we are dealing with our own set-up. Therefore, we must try to get the best relations possible in our aviation industry, and I am sure that this is the desire on both sides of the House. However, it is not something that the House itself can achieve. This must be achieved outside of Acts of Parliament. Therefore, in so far as the National Joint Council has promoted good relations there is much to be said for it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the principal function of the N.J.C. is as a consultative body so that the various people who are interested in providing a good service to the travelling public are at least able to talk about their common problems with a view to sorting them out?

Mr. Lewis: In so far as the N.J.C. brings the parties together, it can only be a good thing. I would support a proposal to seek to bring in airlines that do not belong to the N.J.C., but I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that this is not a matter to be determined in this House. We should support any such move, but we should not legislate for it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I agree with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings (Mr. Warren) and Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) about the need for improved management, although it does not apply only to this industry but applies everywhere. I also agree that good human relations are essential in the industry.

Amendment No. 21 is an improvement on the Amendment which was considered in Standing Committee. It recognises that it would not be right to impose terms and conditions without those concerned making their views known. It is clearly right that membership should precede and should lead to acceptance of agreement. Nevertheless, neither Amendment 21 nor Amendment 23 is, I fear, acceptable because both impose an unnecessary and undersirable rigidity into the present arrangements and would change the rôle of the N.J.C. I echo what has been said about the value of the N.J.C., but I feel that the


Amendments would change its rôle and possibly undermine its success. The proposal that all airlines should be members of the Council was not recommended by the Edwards Committee and was not proposed by the Labour Government.

The Government agrees with the Edwards' view that the virtues of competition and profitability should not be achieved at the expense of those employed in the industry. The problem is to decide how this might best be achieved. We attach considerable importance to the continuing rôle of the N.J.C., but cannot accept the new rôle that is now being suggested.

The difficulty has nothing to do with the public or private ownership of an enterprise. It has to do with size. As the Edwards Committee pointed out,
There is a clear danger (from the point of view of small private airlines) that the counsels of the big batallions will prevail in any central organisation of this sort and the special needs of the small operator will be ignored.

The Government propose that the interests of employees should be safeguarded, first, by not tinkering, as the previous Government proposed, with Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, which deals specifically with the requirement that the terms and conditions of employment of employees of independent air transport undertakings shall not be less than those of the Corporations' employees; and, secondly, by providing through the Industrial Relations Bill a new and basic framework which will apply to all sectors of industry. This will enhance the power and status of the unions, so that a union or group of unions can be recognised as the sole bargaining agent of a group of employees, and it provides new and important remedies for refusal to recognise and negotiate properly.

These will be important and significant steps forward, and I see no reason for distinguishing the air transport industry from any other industry in this context. Therefore, I do not detract from the merits of the N.J.C. It will continue with its rôle. We accept that the interests of the employees in this new arrangement must be safeguarded, but we believe that the Amendment is the wrong way to do it.

Therefore, I must advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Mason: Now that the hon. Gentleman has decided to intervene on Report, I hope that he will not keep quoting Edwards and at all times hiding behind it. While the Edwards Report is a guide, it cannot be the gospel.
As we said on Second Reading, no matter what the Edwards Report said, we felt strongly that, when an airline, small or large, was being examined for financial viability, strength and so on, the N.J.C. should be satisfied also about the wages and working conditions of its employees. We put in a long paragraph dealing with human relations in the industry. We felt that it should be incumbent upon the authority, when examining the financial viability and strength of airlines, especially the smaller operators in this fragmented industry, three of which have collapsed in the past 12 months, also to examine to what extent they had decent working conditions and wage levels. We felt that an operator should not be allowed a licence unless he complied with those requirements. If all operators are brought into the N.J.C., the Council will have that job. It will become the focal point for trying to secure levels of wages and working conditions equivalent to the best; in other words, the Corporations. That is our desire, and that is the aim of the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER having directed that the doors be locked——

Mr. Gerald Kaufman(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A great many hon. Members from both sides of the House have been locked out of the Division Lobbies. Some of my hon. Friends, hon. Members of the Liberal Party and several hon. Members on the Government side have been locked out. I submit that perhaps the doors were closed rather earlier than they should have been.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The doors were closed as the clock reported, but the Chair was aware that an unusually large number of hon.


Members on both sides was locked out. The Chair will therefore be prepared to call the Division again.

Mr. Mason (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I noticed at least a dozen hon. Members being denied the vote This is unusual. Would it be possible to check again whether the doors were closed ahead of the appointed time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Division was taken in accordance with the clock, but we shall make a double check on the next Division.

Mr. David Steel(seated and covered): Further

to that point of order. Without in any way questioning what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I submit that it seemed to me, whilst waiting the swift arrival of some of my hon. Friends that the doors were closed unusually early. It is only a feeling, and I wonder whether that point can be checked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the feeling of the House, and I assure hon Members that the Chair shares that feeling.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 180.

Division No. 399.]
AYES
[6.3 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Golding, John
Millan, Bruce


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Molloy, William


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bamett, Joel
Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Harman, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Portland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Rankin, John


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roper, John


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Ty ne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steel, David


Dormand, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, Tom
McCann, John



Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Foley, Maurice
Marsden, F.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Woof, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher



Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Nort, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Batsford, Brian
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bonyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Boscawen, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Bowden, Andrew
Hornby, Richard
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M, L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bray, Ronald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brewis, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Channon, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Churchill, W. S.
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cockeram, Eric
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Coombs, Derek
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Simeons, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Le Marchant, Spencer
Soref, Harold


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, MaJ.-Gen. James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Longden, Gilbert
Spence, John


Drayson, G. B.
Loveridge, John
Sproat, lain


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, R. N.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Tebbit, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fidler, Michael
Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mawby, Ray
Teney, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Waddington, David


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Warren, Kenneth


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Cower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Wilkinson, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Money, Ernle
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gray, Hamish
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Green, Alan
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Gummer, Selwyn
More, Jasper



Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David
Mr. Tim Fortescue and



Murton, Oscar
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 21, line 37, after 'territory', insert 'or an associated state'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 24

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO AIR TRANSPORT LICENSING

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 25, line 9, leave out 'of its disclosure to the relevant person' and insert:
'to the public and the relevant person of its disclosure to him'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Bisbop: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 25, line 18, at end insert:
'on the grounds that the decision is incompatible with the duty of the Authority under section 3(2) of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 27, in page 25, line 44, at end insert:
(8) Any appeal against a decision of the Authority shall only be on points of law, or materially changed and unforeseeable circumstances.

Mr. Bishop: The Amendment refers to appeals against decisions of the Air Transport Licensing Board, and those who are familiar with the Edward's Report will know the concern expressed on the subject of air tranport licensing, particularly with regard to the appeals procedure and the number of appeals from decisions of the board. It may be, as Edwards alleges, that much of the dissatisfaction is misdirected, but there is no clear guidance of policy, and this causes trouble for the applicant, for the industry, and for the board.
Of greater concern is the fact that in the past—and even now—no one has really known what the basis of appeals should be, or on what basis they would be allowed or disallowed. Perhaps I may refer to the Edwards Report which deals with some of the problems relating to the appeals procedure. It say in paragraph 649:
We have proposed earlier in this chapter that the Government should be required to issue statements of aviation policy in a statutory instrument. If this were done it would then be possible to say that an appeal against a licensing decision could only be made on one of two grounds.
It is on the contention of Edwards that I base the case for the Amendment.
The Report goes on to state the two grounds:

"(i) an appeal could be made on a point of law if it were alleged that the licensing authority had acted beyond its legal powers in making a decision; or
(ii) an appeal could be made on the grounds that a decision of the licensing authority was perverse, i.e. could not reasonably be brought within the declared policy of the Government as set out in the statutory instrument …

We believe that under this arrangement there are likely to be fewer appeals than under the existing system.
Those are important words from a Committee which looked into the matter with great care.
The basis of the Amendment is in keeping with the Labour Government's White Paper on Civil Aviation published in 1969. That White Paper accepted that the grounds for appeal in matters of service licences should be limited to the issue of consistency of a decision by the Board within a declared policy, and that is shown by the extract that I have read from Edwards. There is no reference to a policy on which applicants, the industry, or the Board

might work, and that does not improve the appeals procedure for which Edwards made such an eloquent demand.

Clause 3(2), with which the Amendment is associated, lays an obligation on the Secretary of State, after consultations with the Authority, to give guidance to the Authority in writing with respect to the performance of the functions conferred upon it. That Clause requires that it shall be the duty of the Authority to carry out those functions in such a manner as it thinks fit in accordance with the guidance given to it from time to time.

6.15 p.m.

The aim to restrict the number of appeals is in keeping with the Edwards Report and with the White Paper. In Committee the Minister claimed that he had been advised that if the grounds of appeal were to be restricted by way of reference to Clause 3(2)
it would be essential—nothing less than that —to express the guidance in very precise terms, and in terms which contained no possibility of internal conflict.
I should have thought that it was desirable to give the authority consistent guidance, and guidance on which it could exercise its discretion. On the other hand, if the guidance is too wide— and this is what the Edwards' complaint was about—an appeal is not only meaningless, but impossible, for there will be no opportunity for applicants, or the industry generally, to decide on what basis an appeal is granted or refused.

We claim in the Amendment that there must be provision for an appeal on grounds of inconsistency of policy, or conflict with guidelines, or that the Authority has acted outside its power and outside its legal responsibility. In other words, we provide that an ultra vires situation is a basis for appeal. When we discussed a similar Amendment in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to be so precise in the terms of guidance as would put the Authority in a straitjacket, but later he said that
we must lay down the guidance to the Authority either in the Bill or in the guidance that we give in the White Paper before the Authority comes into being in absolutely clear, precise and uncontroversial terms. Otherwise nobody will know whether or not they have an appeal that will stand up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th May, 1971; c. 423–7.]


That is precisely what the Amendment is all about. We say that that can be achieved only if we strengthen subsection (5)(a) by saying quite clearly that it is not only right to appeal from any decision of the Authority with respect to an application for an air transport licence, but that the basis of an appeal shall be incompatibility or inconsistency with the duties laid on the Authority under Clause 3(2). We believe that to refuse to support an Amendment such as this would be to leave the Authority and applicants dangling in a state not only of indecision, but of injustice. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment, and thereby go some way towards resolving some of the problems that have been thrown up so clearly in the Edwards Report, and provide the basis on which those who want to appeal against a decision of the Authority can do so in very clear terms.

Mr. Anthony Grant: When we discussed the substance of the Amendment in Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) made an excellent speech. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has again put forward a good case today. For all that, however, I must continue to resist these arguments for the same reasons as those for which my right hon. Friend resisted them in Committee.
I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment and I wish that it could have been achieved, but the difficulty is one of legal principle. If we were to restrict the grounds of appeal in this way, the guidance to be given under Clause 3(2) would have to be expressed in very precise terms which contained no internal conflict. Otherwise, the parties would not be able to tell whether there were grounds for appeal. Moreover, to restrict the grounds of appeal in this way would mean that there was no basis for an appeal on any matter which was not referred to in the guidance. To sustain such a restriction, therefore, it would be necessary to have guidance which was all-embracing and left the Authority virtually no discretion.
The hon. Member for Craigton said in Committee, dealing with giving guidance:
… if we do it in too much detail we face the difficulty that, while we are ostensibly

giving the Authority a good deal of power, in practice we may be considerably limiting it by not enabling it to adjust its policy to changed circumstances.
In sound words of wisdom later, he said:
if it goes into too much detail, when it is faced with a problem, the Authority will have nothing to do … except to look up the guidance at the appropriate paragraph and take the decision accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 29th April, 1971, c. 153, 166.]
That is precisely our dilemma, of course. If we were obliged to express the guidance in this way, we might as well not set up the Authority at all. We would do better, in those circumstances, to have the licensing done by the Secretary of State, since then we could be a little more flexible in our decisions.

The Amendment would give rise to a further difficulty. In Clause 3 the duty of the Authority, in subsection (1) is to act
… in the manner which it considers is best calculated—to secure
and
in such manner as it considers is in accordance with the guidance
in subsection (2). It would be difficult for any appellant to show that any decision was incompatible with a duty so expressed, as distinct from being incompatible with the objectives or the guidance. The duty was expressed in that way so as to minimise the scope for legal action about whether the Authority had done its duty in a particular case, and it would be unwise to depart from this.

Therefore, much though I still sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment, I must continue to advise the House to reject it—partly because of the objection which I just stated to the wording, but also and mainly because of the way in which the discretion which we all want the Authority to have would be undermined. We do have to steer between Scylla and Charybdis—the rock of rigidity and the whirlpool of uncertainty.

I cannot accept Amendment No. 27, either. As drafted, it would be unworkable. The Secretary of State is not an appropriate person to decide a point of law. In this country, that is for the courts, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an aggrieved party taking a matter to the courts.

Then there is the reference to "materially changed" or "unforeseeable" circumstances. This wording is ill-conceived. Who can say that a circumstance is unforeseeable? The Amendment would convey no effective right of appeal, or one so insecurely based as not to be worth having. The Secretary of State's intention is to uphold the Authority's decision unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary. If that is what the Amendment is intended to achieve, unfortunately it does not succeed. For all these reasons, and despite my sympathy with their intentions, I must advise the House to reject both Amendments.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that, in future, the Secretary of State proposes to uphold some of the decisions of the Civil Aviation Authority. I only wish that that had been the case in the past. I am sure that he knows that, on most of the most crucial fares and rights decisions on which the A.T.L.B. has pronounced since 1960, the Secretary of State has over-ruled it on the basis of a completely different policy. Only this year, when the Board decided against the fares increase application of B.E.A. and the domestic carriers, the Secretary of State over-ruled it. That fits in very nicely and coincidentally with the pledge to reduce prices at a stroke. Whatever the Minister may say, the Secretary of State and the Government will still be the only Civil Aviation Authority in this country.
The whole tone and presentation of the Bill has been that the Authority will be an independent and autonomous body and a fine example of delegated legislation. But throughout we have had examples of crucial policy decisions which the Authority will not be allowed to take. For instance, under Clause 3, the Authority is told precisely what to do. It must favour Caledonian/B.U.A. Under Clause 4(3) the Secretary of State will be able to tell the Authority exactly what to do, so that, even if he changes his mind and wants the Authority to take a different direction, he can simply tell it to do so. The Authority will have no right to initiate decisions on traffic rights and international fares.
But apart from being able to lay down the guidelines for the Authority under Clause 24(2), the Secretary of State reserves the right to suspend its judgments while he thinks of a new policy. So apart from the guidance given under Clauses 3 and 4, if he decided to change his mind because things were not going well with their vaunted second force, he could tell the Authority to stop what it was doing while he thought of a new policy.
If anyone disagrees with any of the Secretary of State's directives to the Authority, he can appeal to the Secretary of State. I cannot help thinking that, if the Secretary of State had wanted to set himself up as the prosecutor, judge, jury and entire legal and licensing system, he could not have done a better job than has been done by this Bill.
We are seeing a shamefaced attempt by the Secretary of State to become the civil aviation authority in Britain. Any disagreement with the C.A.A's decisions will be taken on appeal to him. I have called it "Mr. Noble's poodle" because this is not a watchdog. It does not have any teeth or even gums. It is a weak-kneed little creature which can be trampled over by airlines and totally disregarded by foreign carriers.
Even Edwards recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority should have a certain degree of independence from Ministerial policy. As hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly testifying to the wisdom of Edwards, why have they not followed it in this matter? Anybody aggrieved by a decision of the Authority will appeal to the Minister, and an appeal can be lodged on virtually any ground. There is no restriction. Even worse, the Minister does not have to explain his decision in full or publicly. Indeed, had he had to explain his recent decision over the fares increase there would have been a public outcry because he was permitting a domestic trunk route fares increase.
If we are to have appeals, they should be to an independent judicial body, as Edwards suggested. Apart from that, all appeals and case histories should be published and made publicly available. We recall how the Secretary of State overruled the decision in the Cunard-British Eagle case in 1961, how he overruled the


decision in the trunk routes application in 1965 and how the refusal of the fares increase recently has been overruled by him. I cannot see anything in the Bill to stop the right hon. Gentleman overruling the Authority even more.
Because I am in favour of a strong independent civil aviation authority, I tabled my Amendment. Unless the right

hon. Gentleman can explain how the independence of the Authority can be established, let alone guaranteed, this cannot be considered a satisfactory state of affairs.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 166.

Division No. 400.]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Colding, John
Molloy, William


Allen, Scholefield
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecclee)
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rankin, John


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Kelley, Richard
Sandelson, Neville


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c't1e-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Sillars, James


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leonard, Dick
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Tuck, Raphael


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Eric G.



Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Ellis, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellheloved, James


Evans, Fred
Marsden, F.
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fisher, Mrs, Doris (B'ham. Ladywood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brewis, John
Curran, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James


Atkins, Humphrey
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marlyebone)
Channon, Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Batsford, Brian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fell, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Clegg, Walter
Ferner, Mrs. Peggy


Boscawen, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
F idler, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bray, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim




Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John
Redmond, Robert


Gibson-Watt, David
Luce, R. N.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.
Rhys williams, Sir Brandon


Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Gorst, John
McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Magrnnis, John E,
Rost, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Russell, Sir Ronald


Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Simeons, Charles


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman
Soref, Harold


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger
Sproat, lain


Hicks, Robert
Molyncaux, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernle
Steel, David


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hornby, Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Morrison, Chartes (Devizes)
Tebbit, Norman


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tilney, John


James, David
Neave, Airey
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Waddington, David


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kilfedder, James
Osborn, John
Walters, Dennis


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Timothy
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Knox, David
Pounder, Rafton



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoff rey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Keith Speed.


Longden, Gilbert
Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clause 29

REGULATION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM AIRCRAFT

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 32, line 16, at end insert:
(7) If a person fails to perform any duty imposed on him by subsections (2), (3) or (5) of this section, he shall—

(a) be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding £250, and
(b) if the failure continues after his conviction of an offence under this subsection arising from the failure, be guilty of a separate offence under this subsection on each day on which the failure continues thereafter and liable to be fined accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss the following Amendments:

No. 30, in line 18, leave out 'the preceding subsection' and insert:
subsection (6) of this section'.

No. 31, in line 32, leave out 'the preceding subsection' and insert:
'subsection (6) of this section'.

Mr. Milian: Clause 29 was a new Clause introduced by the Government during the Committee stage and deals with the regulation of noise. The Clause was given a very warm welcome by Members on both sides of the Committee. I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by all Members of the House because it gives very enhanced powers to the Secretary of State for dealing with the very difficult problem of noise.
There may be some doubt about how toughly the Government will use the new powers given in the Clause. I was rather disappointed by the fairly lukewarm approach which the Minister seemed to have towards the exercise of his power under the Clause. That is a point which may be argued by a number of my hon. Friends who have a much stronger constituency interest than I have in the nuisance that can be caused by noise from an aerodrome.

The Amendment deals with the penalties which may be imposed for the failure of any person to carry out the duties which are imposed on him by the Clause.


It is an extraordinary situation, and a very unsatisfactory one, that the only part of this Clause which attracts penalties is subsection (6)(b), dealing with the failure of the manager of an authority which has been designated under the Clause to make to the Secretary of State such reports as are specified with respect to the noise measured by noise monitoring equipment which he may, under another part of the Clause, be bound to install at the aerodrome concerned.

This is obviously a matter of importance. If one has noise monitoring equipment established and if there is a duty on the manager of an aerodrome to make reports about noise levels as measured by that equipment, it is very important that the reports are submitted. It follows, therefore, that if reports are not properly prepared and submitted, there ought to be some penalties attaching to that failure. Therefore, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable that in subsection (7) we ought to lay down penalties for failure to submit the reports.

6.45 p.m.

I completely fail to understand why the other parts of the Clause do not attract similar penalties. There is a sanction in subsection (1) which the Secretary of State may use where an operator operates his aircraft in contravention of the Clause, and therefore, perhaps, we do not need any further sanction there, and similarly under subsection (6), where one is dealing with the submission of reports from the noise monitoring equipment. With the establishment and installation of the equipment there is the sanction that if the person concerned does not install the equipment, the Secretary of State may install it and send him the bill. That is a perfectly agreeable and effective sanction. But in other parts of the Clause where major duties are imposed on a manager of an aerodrome, under subsections (2), (3) and (5), these are the subject of the Amendment because in these cases there is nothing laid down in the Clause regarding the penalties for failure to comply.

Subsection (2) is important because it empowers the Secretary of State to direct the manager of an aerodrome to secure that facilities for using the aerodrome are withheld, to the extent specified in the direction, from aircraft of which the

person offending is the operator and from his servants, and it is the duty of the person for the time being managing the aerodrome to comply with this direction. This deals with the specific nuisance that may have been caused by the operation of a particular aircraft. When an obligation is placed upon the manager of the aerodrome to see that the nuisance does not continue to be committed, it is important that there should be some sanction if, for good reason or bad, the manager does not comply with the obligation.

Subsection (3) is a major part of the Clause because it includes, for example, provision for limiting the number of take-offs and landings at a designated aerodrome. It is basic to the whole of this problem of noise that a power of this sort should rest with the Secretary of State. It is indispensable that, once his powers have been exercised under the Clause, whoever is manager of the aerodrome should immediately comply with the directions given to him.

Subsection (5) contains a general power for limiting or mitigating the effects of noise and vibration. Again, this is a very important duty that would be placed upon the manager of an aerodrome. It seems indispensable that there should be some sanction if he does not carry out his duties.

As distinct from the duty under subsection (6), which is the subject of a penalty as the Clause stands, the duties under subsections (2), (3) and (5) are imposed by directions rather than by orders. I dare say that this is of some significance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use that as an argument against my Amendment, because if the Amendment were accepted it would involve consequential Amendments to impose these duties by orders rather than directions. All of us would want that to be done. I make that point as a preliminary to the main argument because the wording is in that particular form. It may have significance in terms of drafting. It should not be of significance in the substance of the argument.

In Committee I asked the right hon. Gentleman what would happen if these various obligations were placed on the manager of an aerodrome and the manager did not in practice comply with them. I have received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman confirming, at rather


greater length and with more precision, what he was able to say in Committee. The Minister has told me that he did not think that it was appropriate—he gives no particular reason for that—to make a breach of the duty a criminal offence. He also says:
In England and Wales, where an illegal act which affects the public is committed or threatened, the Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction at the suit of the Attorney-General. … A member of the public can also sue for an injunction, without the aid of the Attorney-General, if he can show that interference with the public right involves an interference with his private rights or that he suffers special damage, peculiar to himself, from the interference with the public right.

In Scotland I understand that the position is, as the right hon. Gentleman has explained it to me, that
a member of the public can sue for interdict where his interests are affected or likely to be affected by an illegal act. In the case of a failure to perform a statutory duty he could apply to the Court of Session for an order for specific performance".

As a Scottish Member I will say something about the Scottish position first. I am not a lawyer. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) is a lawyer and no doubt if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to deal with this matter more fully and more effectively than I could.

I understand that this is a very unusual kind of provision in Scotland. It is highly undesirable that in any circumstances failure of the duty on the part of a manager should have to be counteracted by a member of the public taking action on his own. It is not an effective sanction. It is not reasonable to expect a member of the public—I am talking about Scotland; no doubt similar provisions apply to England—to take action in the Court of Session. The ordinary member of the public who suffers from a noise nuisance may be a person of limited means. For that matter, he may be a person of limited intelligence or limited experience in this sphere. It is not right in any circumstances to say that an individual affected should be under an obligation to take such action.

Mr. Noble: I do not want to spoil the flow of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is sensible and right. There is no doubt in my mind that, if any airport manager is breaking the directions which have been given by the Sec-

retary of State, as soon as this comes to the Secretary of State's attention he will be able immediately to take action by interdict. It is only if an individual perhaps thinks that something is going wrong and decides to take action on his own without consulting my Department that it would be necessary for him so to do.

Mr. Millan: I take that point. My point at present, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman basically disagrees with this, is that for a member of the public certainly in Scotland, and as I understand it, in England the possibility of his taking a case to the Court of Session in Scotland and to the appropriate court in England to get the body concerned to discharge its duty under the Clause is a completely ineffective safeguard which can be ignored.
What the right hon. Gentleman has not explained to us is why, even if there is a right on the part of the Lord Advocate in Scotland and of the Attorney-General in England, the Clause should be expressed in this way. I dare say that, if the Law Officer concerned is sufficiently apprised of the position and acts with sufficient speed, a result could be obtained at the end of the day which is not very different from that which would be obtained as a result of the Amendment.
However, it would be necessary to go through a couple of steps. There would first be an action in the courts to put the "offender" under the duty, and it would be only on a continued failure after such a successful action that any question of penalty would arise. On an important matter like this I see no reason why it should be necessary to have that double kind of action—first an action for specific performance and then an action if the offence continues.
After all, throughout the Bill penalties are imposed for what compared with this are minor breaches of the law. Penalties are prescribed for faiure to send in information to the Civil Aviation Authority. In some cases it may be comparatively trivial information. A penalty is prescribed to be imposed on anyone who, on being asked for information, fills up the form negligently These are all minor matters. In some cases, even if there were an offence probably no harm to the public would be occasioned.
If there were an offence under this Clause, serious harm would be done to very large numbers of people. They would suffer nuisances from noise which they have no right to suffer because the manager of the aerodrome concerned would have been given directions to put matters right. In these circumstances, there is everything to be said for the swiftness of the law coming into operation immediately and for the manager concerned not having any period of grace but being subject immediately to the criminal offence.
In his letter to me the right hon. Gentleman says, as regards the English situation, that an injunction would follow
as a matter of course, except where the injunction would place a public body in serious difficulty, in which case the Court may allow the body a reasonable time to comply.
Although that may sound reasonable, I believe that it is not reasonable. If the manager of an aerodrome is given a direction, we must assume that in the direction all considerations of timing, and so on, have been taken into account. Once the direction has been issued. I see no reason why there should not be compliance with it. Therefore, there should be no period of grace while the Attorney-General considers the matter. There has been a breach whether or not the Attorney-General decides to take out an injunction.
My limited experience teaches me that these legal matters are never done with tremendous expeditiousness. The Attorney-General takes the public body concerned to court. There is a delay in the hearing. The public body says that if it were subjected to the injunction it would be difficult for it to carry out the direction. Then it is given a period of grace. Only at the end of that period if the public body has still not done what it was asked to do in the first place would the question of criminal penalties arise. I see no case for this. As all through the Bill at particular points of time there are imposed on people who in some cases will have much smaller resources than the manager of an aerodrome designated under the Clause obligations which attract penalties if they are not complied with, there is no reason why the same procedure should not be followed here.
This is not a political argument. All hon. Members want the Clause to be

made as effective as possible. I very much hope that the Minister will either accept the Amendments as drafted or accept the sense of them; because I think that the Clause, admirable as it is at present, badly needs strengthening.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) suggests that the Clause needs amending and widening and that this Amendment would alter the meaning of the Clause from something fairly general to something specific.
I am not opposed to the principle behind the Amendment. If the Minister agrees in principle to altering the Clause, attention will have to be paid to the facts of life as regards aircraft noise. Subsection (6)(a) contains phrases such as "in an area" and "in the vicinity" with references to measuring points. These phrases will need a great deal of strengthening if they are to be meaningful. The measuring points could be mobile. Fixed measuring points placed 3·5 nautical miles from the take-off point are well known to every airline pilot. Mobile points would be an effective deterrent. If the measuring box could be looked upon as a sort of random aerial breathalyser, that would add considerably to the teeth of those who want to cut down on aircraft noise.
7.0 p.m.
The distance from the airport is very important. The presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) possibly indicates that a spot 3·5 nautical miles from an airport is not the only place where the effect of noise is felt. There are many instances of noise at 15 miles being as great a disturbance.
If we are to reconsider the Clause, as I hope we shall, the facts of life of noise should be taken into account, and not just Federal Aviation Regulation No. 36, which is the generally-accepted criterion for noise measurement. "Community noise" is the phrase the Americans use for aircraft noise. The community in this instance is fairly widespread. The three-degree glide path could be examined. My right hon. Friend may agree that discussions with B.A.L.P.A. on the interlocked aspects of safety and noise as areas upon which the Clause should be more definitive, would also be helpful.
The Amendment clearly defines offences, but it might be difficult to support specific fines for specific offences. Subsection (b) of the Amendment would be particularly difficult to put into operation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have another look at the Amendment, because the spirit behind it is right.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I am rather relieved that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) has sat down. I was beginning to be frightened by his reference to random aerial breathalysers with teeth.
I warmly commend the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). No one who has the honour to represent one of the London Airport constituencies, as I have, can have any doubt that the noise problem is one which we neglect at our peril. It is getting worse, largely because of the increasing volume of traffic. Noise has become a major pollutant of the environment for many thousands of people, despite the fact that a certain amount, though not enough, has been done by way of sound-proofing grants. I should like to see them increased. Considerable amounts have also been spent on the reduction of aero-engine noise, and a certain amount has been done by way of control, with night-flying bans and so on. But it is a continuing problem on which we must make a continuing attack.
In addition to being a major nuisance— indeed, a scourge—in the lives of many thousands of people, noise produces marked ill-health for a sizeable minority. Five or six years ago I had the opportunity of discussing these problems with the person who was the acknowledged leading authority in the country, Professor Richards, then director of the Institute of Noise and Vibration at Southampton. He told me that, although the noise was a nuisance for most of the people within the areas affected, perhaps up to 10 per cent. are likely soon to be suffering a medical disability in the form of nervous exhaustion and a number of related diseases. In other words, we are here talking about damage to people, and not merely inconvenience.
That is why I strongly commend the Amendments. To me and to many thousands of my constituents the time is past when we can afford to be semi-permissive

about these problems. Now is the time for a tightening up. Whenever we get an opportunity, such as my hon. Friend's Amendments present, we must act.

Mr. Rankin: I do not want to be critical one way or the other. While I do not wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend has just said, he has my sympathy.
I remind those who are troubled by the noise aspect that last Saturday Concorde flew up to Prestwick, and not a soul knew that she had done it—and I am on the flight path. She gave a little exhibition there and then continued to Edinburgh. Not a single newspaper made even a comment on that until the Monday morning. So we must remember that those who are responsible for devising these Concordes which we talk so much about and those who construct them are as fully seized of the problem of noise as are those of us in the House. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill I pointed out that while we hear a great deal about noise in London almost every day aircraft are flying over the House at a height—I can only guess—of about 200 ft. above the House.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is more like 2,000 ft.

Mr. Rankin: I am not tied to any particular figures. I invite any hon. Member to go to the top of the House and try to judge the height of an aircraft above him. He can make an estimate that easily lies between 200 and 2,000 ft. But whether it is 200 or 2,000 ft., not a single hon. Member known to me, nor any official, has ever complained about the noise made by aircraft over the House. It seems that if I say any more I might appear to be defending noise, and I am not doing anything of the kind.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that as the crow flies we are at least 12 or 13 miles from the nearest airport. Is not that relevant to the point he is making? If he went nearer to Heathrow, might not he find it a rather different problem?

Mr. Rankin: I use Heathrow Airport twice a week. I confess that the noise of an aircraft taking off is a bit of a humbug at the airport.
We are talking now of ordinary aircraft —for example, the Trident, which is one


of our best airliners for the transit of ordinary people. It makes a good deal of noise. But then, if one is to get up to Glasgow inside an hour, which is what passengers want, the Trident must have engines that will get her there in the 54 minutes it now takes. That is essential. I have such confidence in the Trident that I never have any qualms when moving through the air in it at that speed. Speed is what everyone here wants. Speed is what the public wants. As a result of that speed, at seven o'clock tonight a Trident took off from Heathrow to Glasgow. There were also flights at four o'clock, five o'clock and six o'clock this afternoon. There is another at 7.30 p.m. and the last will go at 9 p.m. Everyone of these aircraft is packed. There is the same service from Glasgow to London.
Let us accept the fact that it is the speed which has attracted the passengers. When one is in the plane, one does not hear much noise. It is the people outside who hear it. That is where the control must come in and where the Minister is responsible. We have him on the end of a string in that respect. But we must face the fact that people want speed. As I have pointed out before, as a result of the advance in the science of travel, millions of ordinary working people are, at this time of year, because of the cheap fares, enjoying holidays all over the world. They can be provided because of speed. They could never have achieved such holidays if we were still using DH Rapides, which some of us used to know well and which used to take 3¼ hours to Glasgow, not 54 minutes.

Mr. Joseph Harper: You could have walked it.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend says that one could have walked it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am interested in speed also—but the speed of the debate.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, although people do want speed and comfort of travel, there are other things which they want as well —notably, a little quietness around their home firesides?

Mr. Rankin: There is always a moment for prayer. How is one to get the public to achieve that? That is a

personal decision. Quietness is in one's own hands. However, I will conclude now because I wish to give other hon. Members a chance to get into the debate.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If I should not be out of order, I should like to break new ground by directing my remarks to the Amendment. But first I want to refer to the important point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), and I hope that the Minister will make some reference to it. It concerns the orders to be made under this Clause. It is important that these should be specific and not reflect the vague terms of the Bill. I hope that he will recognise that the type of noise which gives most annoyance to the largest number of people is landing noise—the long-drawn-out noise which covers such large areas.
Curiously enough, no airport in the country at the moment measures landing noise in the regular course of events. The airports measure take-off noise, which is short and sharp and is soon over and which discomforts relatively few people. I hope that these orders will not just concentrate on take-off noise, although in some places it is necessary to measure it. In most areas, however, landing noise is the main problem.

The Amendment would achieve something that is most necessary. I congratulate the Government on including the Clause. We on this side do not think that it is yet perfect, but it is a move in the right direction and is something which has not been done since the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, which took the represensible step of removing from the citizen his power to sue. This is the only type of noise for which the citizen has no redress in this country. It is impossible for any citizen to sue because of aircraft noise. It is a grave blot on our legal system that, almost alone of any country, our citizens are deprived of the right to sue over this type of noise. It is the only type of noise or other pollution about which we cannot take action in the courts.

The Clause takes some step towards restoring that right, although a limited one. It does not go far enough. I hope that, in another place, there will be the repeal of these provisions of the 1949


Act and the restoration to the citizen of his right to sue. That would be a short, sharp way to deal with the matter, and the right way.

The right hon. Gentleman might ask, if this were to be done, what would be the protection against irresponsible litigation? The answer, I believe, could be the fiat of the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State might be required to permit legal action to take place, but that the citizen should be totally deprived of legal action is fundamentally wrong. If the citizen is to be deprived of legal action, the Clause, good as it is, needs the teeth which the Opposition suggests, to give it even the semblance of the alternative to legal action.

It is an absurd situation in which one can say that a number of things may not be done but that the Minister has no penalty to impose—nothing that he can do about it except to say, "Do not do it", or to get an injunction. I am no lawyer but I understand that it is much more difficult to get an injunction and much more of a problem to make the injunction stick than to get damages, because damages can be repeated if the offence is repeated. An offender is unlikely to repeat the offence because he knows that the damages could be very considerable in respect of a second offence. We could say definitely that in certain London hospitals the damages which could be awarded as a result of the interference with operations through aircraft noise could be very high.

Although I welcome the Clause it is incomplete without the Amendment and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. If he does not, I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will feel that the matter must be pursued in the Lobby.

Mr. Ernie Money: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down will he deal with one point? He spoke of the difficulty of irresponsible litigation. Would he agree that there are existing safeguards in the Noise Abatement Act and that the same sort of thing could be applied here?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a valuable contribution. It would in my view be entirely possible to prevent irresponsible litigation. That we should be totally deprived, in

this country of all countries, of any right to sue seems to be a sin and a shame. I hope that the Government will put this right.

Mr. Warren: I should be more inclined to support a different approach to this problem. While we are trying to stop the noise, it is more important to look at the way in which we can currently prevent the problems of aircraft noise generation pursuing us across the country. I have in mind the point made about community noise. There are an infinite number of improvements which could be introduced by the British Airports Authority and the national air traffic control system and I hope that the Minister will be looking at these subsequently with a view to their introduction.
Some methods have been mentioned earlier. There is for instance the general situation about air traffic control procedure. There is the question of whether the glide path, currently fixed at 2½ degrees could not be made somewhat steeper—three degrees has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley). There is also the point about the curved approach paths. I do not understand why it is necessary for us to endure the noise in central London when it could be easily avoided, with complete safety to aircraft operations, by using a curved approach to London Airport when landing in a westerly direction. I am sure that this would make a tremendous difference to the views of the hon. Members for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
We have the ability to limit aircraft take-off and landing. The problem is most pronounced in the London area where millions of people hear virtually every aircraft that passes. It must have some effect on them. There is a tendency, although airline pilots will deny this, for many aircraft approaching London to fly below the glide path and then intersect it. This means that they are flying much lower than they need to. I hope that there will be much more stringent air traffic control to ensure that unnecessary noise levels are not imposed on us.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East spoke of mobile measuring points and I can see the virtue of policing


unexpectedly those who might be deviating. However, it is necessary to establish a wide knowledge of noise profiles for each type of aircraft and to be able to identify the height of an aircraft at a given time. If we could agree upon a standard for noise measuring levels, akin to those already in agreement in I.C.A.O., then I would accept the mobile measuring point concept. We have to stick to the facts. We must have accurate measurements so that we do not have people believing that Concorde is the only aeroplane which makes any noise.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) is one of the most experienced Members, subjectively, in noise problems with Concorde and he assures us that there is not the noise problem that we believe. I think that he is substantially correct. It is important not to condemn something out of hand because it makes a noise. This is a mistake we could easily fall into and I am afraid that if we accept the Amendment we should end us with legislation rather than the means of controlling procedures.

Mr. John: Does the hon. Member recognise that the Amendment seeks to lay down what should happen when someone disobeys a regulation made by the Secretary of State? It is accepted that the Secretary of State should take into account what the hon. Gentleman says when imposing his regulations. If a person disobeys those regulations should not that constitute a criminal offence?

Mr. Warren: That is why I hope to hear my right hon. Friend telling us about the Government's future attitude to the problem. I hope that he will be able to consider a much more substantial attack on the whole problem of noise. When we remember that the United States is spending £20 million a year on noise reduction in aerospace ventures we do not seem to be tackling the problems involved in the reduction of current noise and the identification of noise sources and getting down to the containment of noise. I hope that we can look forward to a progressive programme rather than a restraining one of the type proposed by the Amendment.

Mr. John: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) in his opinion about this Amendment.

He should study the wording of Clause 29(2) and (5). Subsection (5) says:
The Secretary of State may give to the person managing a designated aerodrome such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of limiting, or of mitigating the effect of, noise and vibration …
All the hon. Gentleman's observations were directed towards what ought to be taken into account when he is doing that. This Amendment deals with the subsequent processes. If the manager of the aerodrome fails to carry out that direction what sanctions do we have?
The right hon. Gentleman dealt with this in column 790 of the Committee proceedings, and he raised the subject again in the letter which has been quoted by my hon. Friend. On both occasions he carried less than his usual conviction on such matters. He says that it is inappropriate for behaviour of this type to be designated as a criminal offence. What is the difference between subsection (6)(b) which calls upon the manager of the aerodrome to render reports about noise levels and a person disobeying the Secretary of State's directions to mitigate noise levels? The first is a criminal offence while the second is not. There is similarly the question of byelaws in Clause 31. These may be made for regulating or restricting advertising within the aerodrome and if a person contravenes such a byelaw he may be fined. Why should that be regarded as a criminal offence and the ignoring of the Secretary of State's direction under Clause 29(2) or (5) not be so regarded? I am not at all impressed by the procedure laid down for the rectification of this.
7.30 p.m.
First, one can generally say that civil procedure is more tardy than criminal procedure and injunctions are normally granted only when damages are not an adequate remedy. Secondly—and this is occasioned by personal experience of a case in which the Attorney-General sought an injunction in regard to quarrying proceedings—it is not a particularly speedy process. Where we are dealing with a person who has disobeyed the Secretary of State, the essence of the matter is that there should be speed. Thirdly, it is completely unsatisfactory to expect a private person to take this sort of action even after the Attorney-General has had


his bite or has looked at the matter. The private person, be he legally aided or not, is at a considerable disadvantage when seeking an injunction against a large and powerful authority which is an expert in its field, a field which is not redolent of outside experts. Therefore, this deserves to be a criminal offence. Without that, the Clause, admirable as it is, is lacking in specific sanction.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what sanction there is in an injunction? An injunction will merely prevent a person from continuing to disobey a direction of the Secretary of State, and the only penalty which will be visited on him will be his liability for costs. That is not good enough. It should be a criminal offence so that repetition of the offence is a continuing offence. For all these reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendments and thus save the necessity of quarrelling over a Clause which is in essence a good Clause which we welcome.

Mr. John Smith: I follow the argument proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) buttressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and will look briefly at this matter from the point of view of the law of Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton pointed out, there is a difference between subsection (6)(b) and subsections (2), (3) and (5), in that subsection (6)(b) refers to a specific criminal offence. That raises the question of what sanctions there are for subsections (2), (3) and (5). I have very little knowledge of the law of England, but, as I understand, the sanctions might be by way of injunction and perhaps by order of mandamus to enforce the fulfilment of a statutory obligation.
In Scotland, in place of the injunction there would be an action of interdict, not a common action but one which might have some practicability. When it comes to enforcing a statutory obligation rather than preventing a wrong, we run into a severe difficulty from the lack of an effective sanction. There is no such process in the law of Scotland as an order of mandamus. In place of that there is a provision in Section 91 of the Court of Session Act, 1868, which enacts that the

court may order a specific performance of any statutory duty under such conditions and penalties—including fines and imprisonment consistent with the statute —in the event of the order not being implemented as seem proper to the court.
That is a much more limited power available to the court and it is very infrequently used. Indeed, it is normally used against public authorities which are failing to carry out a statutory obligation. I have had a look at some of the cases in which it has been used. In Carlton Hotel Company v. Lord Advocate in 1921, one of the judges described it as a remedy which was peculiar and drastic. It would be most unfortunate to have as a sanction for this impartant provision in the Bill a peculiar and drastic remedy.
The remedy has been used since, but most infrequently. It is a question of dealing with what may be repeated breaches of directions given by the Secretary of State, and there should be a penalty such as the one used in subsection (6)(b), namely, making it a criminal offence with a penalty which can easily be enforced for repeated breaches of the offence, rather than having resort to rather arcane legal sanctions because of the legislature is unwilling to follow the logic of extending the criminal sanction in subsection (6)(b) to the rest of the provisions in Clause 29.
For these powerful reasons, I ask the House to support the Amendment, which is extremely practical and is designed to give legal force to the desirable proposition of putting the Secretary of State in the position of having speedy, effective and reasonable legal remedies instead of the rather arcane and out-of-date methods which are presently applied.

Mr. James Hill: I am sure that when the Secretary of State reads Clause 29(3)(a), which deals with the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft can land and take off, he will realise that people living in the vicinity of small airfields which are subject to training flights suffer severe persecution throughout the summer months. The landings and take-offs of small twin-engined aircraft are sometimes just as noisy as those of large aircraft, because they do not at any time on their circuits get above the 1,000 ft. minimum. If the


Minister says that the management of the airfield will be liable to a fine, I agree with my hon. Friends that a £50 fine does not meet the case of an airport which commercially will be making an extremely favourable contract for these night-after-night landings and take-offs.
Hurn Airport is owned by the local authority, and there was recently so much agitation from the public in the area surrounding the airport that the College of Air Training was forced to return to Southampton, so that Southampton will now be getting the benefit of this nightly problem. If the Minister is able to impose a penalty for flagrant breaches where there is a large number of landings and take-offs I shall be very pleased

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) said, and I compliment him on getting in a second before I did. In Southampton we are extremely worried by the number of trainer aircraft which do their landings, circuits and bumps continually over populated areas, passing over houses at roughly two-minute intervals. I had a lot to say about this in the last Parliament, and I succeeded in securing an improvement for a little time when the nuisance was transferred to Hurn, but now it is coming back.
Unless penalties are imposed, as the Amendment recommends, the whole Clause will be meaningless. Will the Minister say whether Clause 29(3) applies to trainer aircraft? That is not clear from the Bill. We know that the Minister can make an order to restrict the number of take-offs and landings, but we do not know whether such an order applies to training aircraft.
We all appreciate that pilots have to be trained and that the College of Air Training has to go somewhere but, to alleviate the nuisance this has caused in Southampton for a long period, will the Minister give an assurance that trainer aircraft are included in the Clause? Secondly, will the Minister and those responsible be vigorous in making regulations? Thirdly—and this is where the Amendment comes in—will he ensure that when those regulations are made that there is a sufficient penalty behind them to ensure that they are kept?

Mr. James Allason: When considering penalties we should also consider the nature of the offence and in particular the rules the Minister intends to lay down. He should realise that controls which are appropriate for London Airport are totally unsuitable for other airports, and that certainly applies to Luton Airport. For example, the measurement of the 3½-mile point at Luton dead in line with the runway roughly coincides with my cottage, but since there is a 45-degree turn immediately after take-off, the air craft, happily, fly some way away from my cottage. The worst conditions at Luton Airport happen to be nine miles away from the airport. At one mobile measuring station the county council has ascertained that there is as much noise from a BAC-111 at that point nine miles from Luton as would be allowed in any part of Heathrow. The reason is that at 3,000 ft. a BAC-111 is allowed to open up on full throttle. My constituents in that area are suffering an incredible noise level.
I hope that the Minister will lend a ready ear to the idea that if any aircraft at any point on the ground exceeds 102 P.N.dB. that shall constitute an offence.

Mr. Onslow: If my right hon. Friend should feel disposed to accept these Amendments, I hope that would not be because of some of the arguments which have been advanced in this debate, which seem in part to rest on the assumption that all airline operators are guilty until proved innocent. I know this is a fashionable point of view, but I do not subscribe to it.
I believe that airlines have taken considerable steps to mitigate noise nuisance. Indeed, it is in their interest, and in the interest of their employees, to do so; and it is certainly in the interests of manufacturers to assist them. It may be that airlines could be given greater stimulus in the future than has been the case in the past, and that awareness of the community as a whole of the need to preserve the environment from pollution is bound to provide such a stimulus. But if we go too far, this will be reflected in a lower return on investment and fewer employment opportunities.
We shall be in considerable danger if we do not keep constantly in mind that


the environmental band waggon comes down strictly on the side of the rich. It may well be that employment opportunities will be denied to many people in aviation because of a section of the community, principally the well-to-do. This will be detrimental to people who otherwise would have found themselves working to improve their prospects in this sector. This word of warning should be sounded, otherwise there may well be a backlash against environmental considerations of the kind embodied in these Amendments.
Although I acquit the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) of deliberate intention to promote this kind of situation, if the public are led to feel that all pilots, airline operators and aircraft manufacturers are part of a vast anti-social, noise-creating group, it will have a detrimental effect on many people including those who are represented by some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Money: There is a great deal of sense in this Amendment which provides the "teeth" of this legislation. We know only too well from experience of town and country planning legislation that, unless teeth are provided, certain people are prepared to do everything they can to get round various provisions.
Noise is like sin: everybody is against it in principle, but nobody knows what to do about it. Ever since the publication of the Wilson Report there has been uncertainty about the steps the Government should take to curb what has become greater and greater infringement of the rights of individuals. This whole piece of legislation is going a great deal of the way, but unless teeth are provided we are thrown back on a situation in which the ordinary person is not protected by the civil law. It is impossible to start proceedings of this sort in the county court and if the people have to go to the High Court it is an expensive and tedious form of proceedings.
The wording of the Amendment will provide an effective mitigation. I do not feel there is a risk of irresponsible legislation because that could be guarded against by the sort of safeguards which exist in the Noise Abatement Act which has worked remarkably well. I have an interest to declare since I live some

seven miles from Stansted. The only way we find helpful in making plain what we feel about persistent over-flying and low flying is to ring up the duty officer consistently at ten-minute intervals throughout the night.

Mr. Carol Mather: The Amendment has detected a weakness since the manager of an airport is not particularly interested in minimising noise. He is interested in the increasing commercial prosperity of the airport and in increasing traffic and the frequency of movements. I am therefore wondering whether he has enough incentive to comply with these provisions if there is no further encouragement for him to do so.
The measuring equipment at Heathrow seems to be of two kinds. One is the measuring equipment used by the airline to control its own traffic. The other equipment is contained in mobile vans run by the Department of Trade and Industry. Could not some of these mobile vans be used in an impartial way to determine the various noise levels at particular points?

Mr. Noble: I will try to reply to what has been the longest debate so far on Report, though on this subject this perhaps was foreseeable. I reply with some willingness because I know how seriously a large number of people are affected by aircraft noise; I shall try to make one or two general points in answer to the debate before coming to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) said that we had to look at the facts of life and, indeed, we are doing so. I spent the whole of Friday looking at the facts of life round Heathrow. Our new Clause—and I am grateful for the congratulations to the Government on introducing the Clause— is drawn in a fairly flexible way, for specific reasons of which I know my hon. Friend will approve, so that we can vary what is done according to the facts of life at the very varied aerodromes with which we shall have to deal. However, the fact that in many parts the Clause is drawn flexibly does not mean that the directions should not be specific. All the points made by my hon. Friend are very sensible. Certainly they will be looked at, and I hope that it will be possible to


comply with them. If my hon. Friend has a spare moment, possibly in the Smoking Room, I suggest that he discusses some of his points with one of our pilot Members. What is sensible to us as laymen is often nonsense to the pilots.
I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), in whose constituency I spent a day on Friday. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the possibility of soundproofing grants and so forth. Following my day in the area, where I spoke to a great many people, I am looking critically at what the Government are doing and might do. However, as a result of my day at Heathrow, I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that landing noise is the worst. Anyone fairly close to the end of a runway where V.C.10s, Tridents and 707s are taking off knows that take-off noise is considerably worse. I spent time at both ends of all the runways.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I admit that takeoff noise is louder. However, the number of people discommoded is greater as a result of landings because of the slowness of approach and the large amount of ground covered. Millions of people are affected by landings, whereas the number affected by take-offs is likely to be thousands and possibly only hundreds.

Mr. Noble: I accept that, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the control of landing noise is one of the most difficult to undertake since the glide path is fixed and the pilot has to maintain his aircraft at a certain slope. Any infringement of noise is almost certainly put down to the pilot having to correct the angle of his aircraft in a way that is essential for its safety.

Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend says that he spent a day at the airport. Can he assure us that he will not attribute to sideline noise, which is not generally considered anti-social, the same harm as is attributed to take-off and landing noise? Sideline noise at the airport is one which rarely draws complaints from people.

Mr. Noble: I think that I know what my hon. Friend is after, though having spent a day at the airport I regard all noise as objectionable. My hon. Friend

the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) spoke about looking at the various problems of glide paths, curved approaches, and so on. Incidentally, I understand that the glide path at London is already 3 degrees and not 2½ degrees. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall look at any suggestions, provided that they give us both safety and a better result.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the £20 million being spent in the United States on noise reduction. We are keeping closely in touch with the U.S. authorities and hope to get some benefit from their work. However, I remind the House that, if the United States Congress agrees, we are committing approaching £145 million to trying to build probably the quietest engine in the world, and one which will be of great help in these matters.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) stuck strictly to the Amendment. However, as he is not here at the moment, possibly I might be allowed to deal with his points when I come to the Amendment.
The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) is that, while training flights are noisy, to the extent that they take place from any B.A.A. airport or any other airport licensed for public use, under the new Clause they will come under the powers of designation, direction and so on from the Secretary of State.
From a fairly steady correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), I know almost every point in his constituency over which an aircraft passes, and almost minute by minute at night. My hon. Friend has a very serious problem, and all that I can do is to assure him that I am well aware of it.
I come, then, to the group of Amendments that we are discussing. I am concerned to try in any way within reason to stop the increase of noise in these areas and, if possible, to reduce the noise. I am therefore not in conflict with what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. However, I am a little worried about the form of the Amendments. We are discussing aircraft operational


matters, and my advice is that they are not suitable for criminal offences. Those concerned are people like the British Airports Authority, Glasgow Corporation, Manchester Corporation and others. Those are the people whom, it is suggested, we have to fine for misbehaving and ignoring directions.
Airports which are designated under the Clause will be airports licensed for public use. We are not dealing with curious fly-by-night bodies, and I do not agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd that the use of an injunction is either slow or ineffective. My reason for taking this line is that I have been assured that, if there were breaches of directions given by the Secretary of State, it would be possible to get an emergency injunction far quicker than a prosecution through the courts. In many cases, an injunction could be obtained on the same day.
I want if possible to stop anything which creates noise, though not necessarily to fine either Glasgow Corporation or the British Airports Authority. After all, any fine goes straight back through our pockets in tax or rates——

Mr. Money: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that any sort of injunction would almost certainly have to be on terms as to costs and, in those circumstances, would prove quite outside the pocket of the ordinary citizen?

Mr. Noble: I was coming to that point. It is not suitable for the ordinary citizen to have to do it. But it would be a matter, in almost all cases, of the Secretary of State approaching the Attorney-General complaining that a certain authority was contravening his directions and asking for an injunction to be taken out at once. I am told that that could be done very quickly and that, if the injunction were broken thereafter, the offending authority could be fined heavily for contempt of court, for breaking the injunction, or whatever it was.
I am, however, prepared to look at the point in the light of what has been said by hon. Members. I shall discuss it again with my legal advisers. If we feel that there is likely to be any real reduction of noise as a result of providing for fines of this sort, while not necessarily accepting the exact form of the Amendments, I am determined to use any power that I can to reduce noise. The only

reason for my slight resistance at the moment is that I am advised that this would not give me any extra power whatever. However, I will look at it again. If it will give me an extra weapon in my armoury I promise to take it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: When reconsidering this matter with his advisers, will the right hon. Gentleman also re-examine the startling proposition which he put forward that it would be unsuitable to fine Glasgow Corporation or the British Airports Authority? It is difficult to understand why they should not be fined but that some other individual who runs an airport should be fined. What reason is there for a public authority not being fined?

Mr. Noble: Perhaps I was making my point in shorthand and therefore too quickly, because we have had a good debate on it. When we are dealing entirely with local authorities and the British Airports Authority there is a great deal less satisfaction in imposing fines. We want to stop them doing something stupid rather than fine them, because the fine is paid not by them but by the taxpayer. Therefore, it does not have the same deterrent effect on that type of body as on an ordinary individual with his own business.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman has given an unsatisfactory reply to a lengthy debate on a matter in which there is a great deal of interest. He was kind, understanding and sympathetic, but his reply was neither very effective nor acceptable.
The Minister said that he would reconsider whether there is any value in this idea. He has already had time. We are grateful for Clause 29, but it is only partially effective. Subsection (7) imposes a fine only on a person managing a designated aerodrome if he does not, at his own expense, maintain and operate noise measuring equipment, submit reports when requested, and allow his noise measuring equipment to be inspected at the wish of the Secretary of State. That is a fine imposed on an aerodrome owner concerning his own equipmnt.
What of those who create the noise? This is the nub of the argument. In subsection (2) the right hon. Gentleman has power to stop a noisy operator from using an airport. In subsection (3) he has power


to allow a noisy operator to use an airport, but to lay down directions limiting his operations. In subsection (5) he is given power to issue directions to the manager of an airport laying down how much his aerodrome may be used by noisy aircraft.
For all these owners, managers and aircraft operators there are no penalties if they contravene directives. The right hon. Gentleman compels the airport owners to have the necessary equipment to check noise levels, submit reports, and so on, and fines them if they disobey, but the noise makers have no sanctions applied to them.
The Clause mentions the possibility of detaining an aircraft, but that is farcical. First, there have to be noise checks to establish that an aircraft has contravened the maximum P.N.B. level, whatever it may be, night or day; secondly, it has to be reported to the Secretary of State; and finally, he has to give a directive to the airport to detain the aircraft. Meanwhile there have probably been many breaches of the noise levels before that procedure has been completed. What then? There is no mention in the Bill of anything else that the Minister will do.
We think that it would be far more logical and effective if at the outset the Minister made clear in legislation that those who contravened the set noise levels would be logged, as a result of recordings made on the monitoring equipment, and fined for every offence.
We accept that noise is pollution and that it affects the quality of life. We have accepted in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill that polluters must pay. Yet the Government are not prepared to enforce that concept in this instance.

Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if a pilot is able to establish that the noise infringement results from a manoeuvre which he had to undertake to safeguard his passengers, he should be fined without defence?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman knows that within the framework of a fines procedure there is bound to be an escape clause for the possibility of avoiding an accident. Various situations may arise—air misses and so on—when the

P.N.dB. level may be exceeded during the day or night. I accept that there will be such occasions, but that should not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from writing into Clause 29 a fines procedure for those who regularly breach maximum noise levels.
I know that the Minister has received shoals of requests from people living near airports demanding re-routing of traffic and fewer landings, especially at night. He also knows of the many lobbies which have been mounted, the petitions which have been submitted, and the anti-noise movements which have developed. Yet he coolly and quietly states that he is prepared to ignore the lot by not introducing fines against noise offenders.
We are serious about this form of pollution. It has adverse effects on thousands of people, particularly the old, the hospitalised, and the students. It has adverse effects on the very quality of life. This is the opportunity to start to control it. If the Minister wishes to gain the confidence of the many thousands of people living near the airports who are affected in this way, he must show that he intends to do something about it. The Amendment seeks to protect people. It aims to improve the quality of life, not to destroy it. We believe that this will be achieved if we start to make the polluter pay.

Mr. Mather: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was unjustly accusing my right hon. Friend, because he is, to my knowledge, the most sympathetic Minister responsible for aviation and aircraft noise that there has yet been in this House. What steps did the previous Government take to solve this problem?

Mr. Mason: Without developing into a lecture on the steps which we took when in office, there was a gradual continuation of what previous Governments had done. For the first time in many years we have a major Civil Aviation Bill and we now have the opportunity of introducing effective steps to curb noise round airports. Clause 29 takes us some way. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment, we have a chance to start curbing noise effectively. That is the aim of the Amendment.

Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I could not conceivably


have gone further than to say that if there were any chance of the Amendment being effective, I would certainly introduce it. In my view, and that of my legal advisers, who, after all, are probably the same as his, there is very little chance of the Amendment having any effect whatever on aircraft noise. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to divide on aircraft

noise we can all go into one Lobby. If he wants to divide on the Amendment, we shall have to go into opposite Lobbies.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes, 164.

Division No. 401.]
AYES
[8.6 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, itchen)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Roper, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lawson, George
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Sillars, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred
McCann, John
Torney, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
Marion, Simon (Bootle)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Marsden, F.



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mayhew, Christopher
Mr. James Hamilton.


Golding, John






NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Humphrey
Chapman, Sydney
Eden, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Churchill, W. S.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Batsford, Brian
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Eyre, Reginald


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Benyon, W.
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Boscawen, Robert
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick
Fox, Marcus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brewis, John
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor




Gorst, John
MacArthur, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gray, Hamish
McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rost, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Madel, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gummer, Selwyn
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Halt, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mather, Carol
Simeons, Charles


Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sproat, lain


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hiley, Joseph
Molyneaux, James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hooson, Emlyn
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Homstay-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


James, David
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kershaw, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Waddington, David


Kilfedder, James
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Kinsey, J. R.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Knox, David
Peel, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Loveridge, John
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Luce, R. N.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 33, line 15, after 'Order', insert:
'or designated under section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968'.
I think that, in general, the Clause is good because, as we have been discussing, it attempts to control the nuisance value of the noise the vibration of aircraft, and I thought that it was a strange tactic on the part of the Opposition to go into the Lobby against it.
My object in putting forward the Amendment is to bring within the Clause those private airfields not licensed for public use because, if we could do that, we would make this a truly comprehensive Clause to cover every type of airfield in Britain. In Committee my right hon. Friend said that the Clause covered every type of airfield except the private ones. My worry, and that of many innocent people who live near private airfields, is that noise is just as disturbing whether one lives within two miles of Heathrow, or within a quarter of a mile of a tiresome private airfield, and just as much a pollution of the environment.
Normally I am not in favour of greater central Government control over things

that go on in the country. Local authorities can look after these largely local problems, but if they have real powers to mitigate the effect of aircraft noise and vibration over private airfields, I should be grateful for an explanation of how they can be used.
My information is that local authorities have no teeth to control the nuisance of private airfields. It is said that they can control them by planning decisions, but that is looking to future expansion by stealth: it cannot control what is going on at the moment. A borough planning officer said some weeks ago:
Although they can exercise effective controls over the green belt on a terrestrial basis, of what avail is that if the peace and quiet of the country is made hideous for all who live within earshot of an airfield?
Therefore, just leaving the matter in the hands of planning committees is not good enough.
Procedures were laid down in Section 8 of the 1968 Act which are adequate in many instances, and there is an effective liaison between the local authorities around airfields and the owners of those airfields. But consultation is not enough if the nuisance goes on. The owner may


cynically say that he is ready to listen to the inhabitants, but if he does not have to do anything, what good is that? Planning is no good, and consultation is no good if the airfield continues to cock a snook at the local authority. I should be interested to know how many small airfields have been designated under Section 8.
There is also the nuisance value of training flights. We all know that they have to go on, but does it have to be over highly populated areas? What regulations control such flights? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the controls? Will he use his powers to control this sort of thing?
Of course night training and night flying can only be done at night, but it is surely not necessary, even at the height of the summer, to continue night training flights over highly populated areas after midnight. I have sent my right hon. Friend details of such cases. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) expressed his concern in Committee about the same problem.
It is said that the private citizen can take legal action, but that is not very practical. There is the cost of prosecution and the problem of knowing the height at which an aircraft was flying. If I saw an aircraft flying over, I would not have the least idea of its height. To get a prosecution, one has to judge that it is flying at under 500 feet. It is impractical and wrong to leave that to the private citizen.
An example of how a small airfield can cock a snook at the local residents occurred in my constituency the other day. Residents rang up the controller to complain about night flying at the airfield. One was told, "You get your council to approve our tarmac runway and we will stop night flying". Another was asked, "What are you complaining about? You got your house cheap because of the airfield ". I could quote many more such replies.
This is the problem we want to solve. There is a lot of talk about pollution of the environment, but there will be an increasingly strong reaction against this if we cannot do something about private airfields.
This Clause is very good. All that I am trying to do is fill a small gap.

No doubt the majority of private airfields are well run, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept a modest Amendment to deal with a modest but serious problem—the minority who abuse these rights.

Mr. Allason: I greatly welcome Clause 29, bearing in mind its possible target. My right hon. Friend will be surprised to hear that I have an entirely different target in mind.
His argument against the Amendment will probably be that the Clause should not be operated against small airfields because that is unnecessary. But the Clause operates only if an airfield is designated, and it will be designated only if there is a need. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to designating any airfield rather than just those which have so far been discussed. Surely my right hon. Friend realises, after his experience of the pain and stress caused by aircraft noise, how useful such a weapon would be to him.
In Hemel Hempstead about 10 years ago outline permission was granted for a helicopter site just beside the motorway. Now there is an intention to use the site again, and the local people are naturally desperately worried about what is likely to occur, particularly in view of their experience of Luton Airport. This started as a nice quiet little airport and we lived happily amid the lazy buzz of piston-engined aeroplanes which did nobody any harm. Then, about three and a half years ago, they started operating jets from Luton, and life has been made a misery and hell.
8.30 p.m.
What might have been acceptable as a helicopter station 10 years ago is causing grave anxiety and alarm today in view of the beastliness of the machines that are now being produced. This is recognised by the Government in that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has called in the planning application for a public inquiry.
A decision in this matter will no doubt finally be made, but I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) over this and I am not sure that a solution to the problem will be found along these lines. If the idea of using this site as a helicopter


station is killed stone dead, that will be the end of the matter, but what if helicopters are permitted to use it? There will be no further possibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment controlling the activities there, apart from saying that not more than a certain number of flights, perhaps 10 an hour, shall take place. Helicopters are bad enough today. Who knows how they will develop in five or 10 years from now? Once planning permission has been granted, all control will be lost. The Government should have power of control which can be kept in the background and used if really necessary.
I had a long struggle persuading the Government to take powers to control Luton Airport. They finally did so. I beg them to take powers to control other airports to avoid another uphill struggle should smaller airports present the same sort of difficulty that Luton presented.

Mr. Onslow: Whatever response my right hon. Friend may give to this Amendment, I assure him that the reaction he gets from these benches will not be as unreasonable, ungracious or unfair as the reaction he got from hon. Gentlemen opposite on the last Amendment, which was a disgraceful example of what happens when one yields to the temptation to play politics with issues like pollution and play to the gallery by calling a Division on the flimsiest of grounds——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line.

Mr. Onslow: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will not withdraw my remarks, either.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel disposed to accept the Amendment because, anticipating his answer, it will not involve him in an enormous bureaucracy or needing to establish a great machine of control. He will merely need to do what seems to him to be appropriate at any given time.
In 1968 hon. Gentlemen opposite placed an Act on the Statute Book and in it they could have incorporated many of the desirable things they now want to see happen. It was agreed that under

Section 8 of that Act private airfields could be designated as requiring consultative facilities. This power has been used sparingly and there may be a dozen such airfields that have been so designated.
I think it may be possible to proceed from there to the point at which it could be agreed to have certain additional powers to enable the Minister to have a measure of control. This may be needed on only rare occasions. It would be a reserve power and there would be no mandatory duty on him. It would, however, be an important power for him to have. It seems that the most appropriate part of the Bill in which to incorporate it is Clause 29(3), and it would not involve the setting up of an elaborate noise monitoring machine.
People are mainly concerned about things like the frequency of training flights and circuits taking place at extraordinary hours during the night. I have had experience of this. I have arrived home at midnight to see lights on aircraft circling and landing on a local field near to where I live. I have always thought it unreasonable that people should be prevented by this activity from sleeping. Sometimes the noise continues until well after midnight. This should be controlled. If my right hon. Friend says that he has powers to control it, I shall not be so indiscreet as to ask why he does not use them, but I do press him to use them. If he says that he has no such powers, he would make that good by accepting the Amendment.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) says that complaints keep flooding in about the activities of major airports. My right hon. Friend will remember that from time to time I have passed complaints to him about aircraft movements from Heathrow. In the past six months I have had no complaints about Heathrow from my constituency. That is, perhaps, because the weather has been so foul. But I have received, and I expect to continue to receive, complaints about the operation of this relatively small, apparently inconspicuous and un-troublesome little field because of the way in which it is used. It would be wholly reasonable if my right hon. Friend would agree that the powers which we now seek to confer upon him would be powers which he might find useful indeed.

Mr. Mather: In Committee my right hon. Friend, referring to a similar Amendment, said that powers like these are kept only over airports licensed for public use, whereas noise affects communities many miles distant from the immediate neighbourhood. Perhaps he could explain the reason for that Statement.
There must be an equal problem from small aerodromes of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls). Just outside my constituency there is a small private airport, Wisley, which comes to within about 12 yards of my constituency. It is not used much at present but it is about to change hands; therefore, its use may change and it may be a very great potential problem to my constituents in that area. It is a rural area, the only truly rural part of my constituency, and is quiet and peaceful. There is a potential nuisance, and therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would not be wise to take the opportunity presented by the Bill, which may not occur again for a considerable time, because there will be comprehensive provisions in the Bill to control all types of aircraft noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey described it as a modest but serious problem. I would suggest that my right hon. Friend looks at the problem in a serious and not a modest way.

Mr. Noble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having put a very difficult point well and very responsibly. I appreciate the force behind the argument inherent in the Amendment. It seems reasonable that an aerodrome designated for consultative purposes under Section 8 of the 1968 Act should also be subject to Governmental controls over noise.
In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment, about 33 aerodromes have been designated under the 1968 Act, of which all but nine are licensed for public use. However, I do not believe that any such link should automatically exist. Noise is not by any means the only reason leading to designation of an aerodrome under Section 8 of the 1968 Act. The latter provision covers consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome, as it affects the interests of those using the aerodrome or living near it. Noise

need not be a factor in designation under Section 8.
What is more, even if noise is a local factor, it does not follow that it is a factor of national importance also justifying Governmental control. My hon. Friend said that he did not want the Government to control everything, though he would like it to control this noise problem. The reason why Clause 29 was limited to aerodromes licensed for public use is that these include all the cases where the noise from traffic using an aerodrome ranges far beyond the immediate neighbourhood. Leaving aside the B.A.A. airports, the amount of traffic at aerodromes licensed for public use ranges in 1969 from about 70,000 movements in the case of Glasgow, for example, to about 23,000 movements in the case of Tees-side. The busiest 20 non-B.A.A. airports licensed for public use accounted for about one million aircraft movements in 1969. Public transport traffic is not limited to aerodromes licensed for public use, but in practice the great bulk of that traffic—scheduled and charter services—uses such aerodromes. In practice, therefore, the aerodromes licensed for public use include those involved with regular airline traffic the noise from which spreads far beyond the aerodromes in question.
In contrast—I merely make these points to my hon. Friend to show that there is sometimes a danger in doing what the House wants and bringing a new Clause into a Bill, because as soon as this is done I am pressed to go further along the road—the geographical extent of the sound effects from aerodromes not licensed for public use is different in being much more locally confined. The Amendment would bring nine of these 70 aerodromes licensed for ordinary use within the ambit of the Clause. The use of such aerodrome is limited to the licensee and persons specifically authorised by him.
I am concerned about the potential scale of administrative effort that any extension of the Clause could demand from my Department. At present, under powers confined to B.A.A. airports, about 50 staff are engaged full-time in my Department on noise control and abatement measures, which to all intents and purposes concern Heathrow and Gatwick and their immediate vicinity.


Even a relatively restrained use of the power under the Government Clause to designate any of the 35 non-B.A.A. aerodromes licensed for public use would, therefore, involve a very substantial effort in terms of central Government staff and resources.
Therefore, I place my store on continuing action by aerodrome managements themselves, although, if that is not forthcoming, we shall certainly not shy away from using our powers of designation. However, I see no justification for the call on staff and resources potentially involved in provisions under which the Government could be pressed to invoke the powers, not just on 40 aerodromes licensed for public use, but in respect of other aerodromes whose use has a purely local effect.
As a practical person, I say to my hon. Friend—my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made the same point—that it is all very fine and large to say that, if the Minister has these powers to cover every sort of airfield, he need use them only in cases which he thinks are particularly bad. It is not whether the Minister thinks that he should use them. It is whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead thinks that the Minister should use the powers. And if the Minister does not use them, God help him.
This is right and proper, but we must not overlook the fact that, once powers are taken in respect of every type of airfield, the Minister will be driven by pressures from all over the country to using his powers and the number of staff and the amount of resources will rise greatly. The alternative is that the places that need the protection will not get it because the staff will be scattered too thinly around.

Mr. Allason: As the Government have expressly taken from the citizen the right to sue against aircraft noise, is it not for the Government to protect the citizen?

Mr. Noble: This is true to a considerable extent, but the government need not be central. It can be local.

Mr. Onslow: I do not know whether White Waltham is one of the airfields designated. I believe that it has about 50 per cent. more movements a year

than has Tees-side. I also believe that the operators at that airfield, under a self-denying ordinance, carry out a lot of the night flying training over Belgium. If an order were to be placed on an airfield like that to the effect that there was to be no flying after midnight, all that would be required would be for the citizens to police it. There would be no need for additional civil servants.

Mr. Noble: I do not know without a little research whether White Waltham is designated.
The first consideration was the effort necessary in terms of staff and resources. The second consideration is that the operational procedures that we prescribe at Heathrow and Gatwick for noise abatement purposes are of limited efficacy and are certainly inappropriate, if not downright impracticable, at the smaller aerodromes concerned only or largely with private flying and flying instruction. We lay down, for instance, at Heathrow and Gatwick maximum noise levels and minimum noise routes. We require aircraft taking off to reach a minimum altitude at specified points and then to cut back power. We employ a three-degree glide slope and prohibit incoming aircraft from joining it below specified altitudes. These are the only measures open to us with which to put some restraint on noise from aircraft in the air. Not only are they of limited effectiveness, as the speeches on the last Amendment showed, but they are applicable only to the medium or large jet transport aircraft for which they were designed.
The bulk of aircraft using aerodromes other than those licensed for public use are not of those types, nor are private flying instruction procedures susceptible to such requirements. The only practical and effective control against noise at those aerodromes licensed for ordinary use, and not licensed at all, is therefore to limit or curtail aircraft movements at the aerodrome, either by number or by period and time of day.
This form of control, being a physical rather than a procedural control, is readily open to the local planning authority to apply and enforce. I have already referred to the purely local impact of noise from operations at aerodromes licensed for ordinary use, but I


must caution the House against attempting a panoply of regulation by central Government in these circumstances. If control is needed, the only practical and effective form is available to the local planning authority in the shape of limitations on movements.
Such a control can be imposed as a condition of planning permission. As a last resort, where absolutely necessary, it could even be introduced by the local planning authority as a fresh condition after planning permission had been given, just as such permission can be revoked altogether by resort to the provisions for discontinuance of use. I do not suggest that these possibilities of last resort are straightforward, because they give rise to questions of financial compensation. But I doubt equally whether the scale or intractability of the local problems of the smaller aerodrome is such that it cannot be dealt with by local planning machinery.
The House should not think that in taking this view the Government are shirking a legitimate responsibility. If problems arose at those small aerodromes in the form of low flying, for example, which contravened safety regulations or air traffic control requirements, that should and would be tackled by prosecution, which if necessary my Department would undertake. But where within a purely local framework the problem is one of the use of an aerodrome in ways for which planning permission was given or which it could regulate appropriately, I am reluctant to use powers or responsibilities which take matters out of the local planning authorities' hands.
This is a problem which straddles both my Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as many problems in this field do. He and I will keep in close touch about it, and where necessary supply local planning authorities with the relevant information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has spoken of the possibility of a helicopter port being built which might be a nuisance to his constituents. In such a case it is, first, up to the local authority to lay down such conditions as it thinks reasonable. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will support this. That is the correct way to deal with such problems, serious though they are, which con-

cern a comparatively small area around a small airport. My hon. Friends asked me to take powers of designation, but I do not believe that this is something which the Government could easily control any better centrally than can be done locally.

Mr. Grylls: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said. But can he say exactly what the planning regulations are that local authorities—county councils, rural and urban district councils—can use to exercise the control? If control can be exercised locally, I agree that that is very good. But my information is that local authorities have no control other than the control of expansion, and we are talking not about expansion but about the existing situation. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could let me know the position and in due course, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, advise county councils so that they are fully aware of it. Many of them are not fully aware of it at present.

Mr. Noble: I certainly will draw my hon. Friend's attention to these powers and explain how they will operate. He will recall that earlier I said that there are cases of existing aerodromes which are not particularly straightforward and might involve the local planning authorities in having to pay compensation. In a case where serious environmental damage was done, I am sure that the local authorities would be willing to face that.

Mr. Grylls: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31

BYELAWS

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 35, line 5, leave out '£25' and insert '£100'.
I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments No. 52, in page 90, line 4, at end insert:
8A. In section 9(3) of the Airports Authority Act 1965 (under which a contravention of byelaws under that section may be punished by a fine of an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds for the words "twenty-five pounds") there shall be substituted the words "one hundred pounds".

No. 53, in page 90, line 5, leave out 'the Airports Authority Act 1965' and insert 'that Act'.

No. 56, in page 93, line 34, at end insert:
24A. In section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968 (under which a contravention of byelaws under that Act may be punished by a fine of an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds) for the words "twenty-five pounds" there shall be inserted the words "one hundred pounds".

No. 57, in page 93, line 35, leave out 'the Civil Aviation Act 1968' and insert 'that Act'.

These Amendments arise as a consequence of a helpful suggestion—I had many in Committee—from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). The Bill at present provides a maximum penalty of £25 for offences against the byelaws of the Civil Aviation Authority's aerodromes in line with the existing penalty provisions in respect of offences against the byelaws of aerodromes operated by the British Airports Authority, the Department of Trade and Industry and the local authorities. The British Airports Authority will have particular problems, particularly at Heathrow, with regard to touting, and the present byelaws are inadequate. The fact that touting includes abortion touting will be a sufficient reminder to hon. Members of the seriousness of the problem. I am sure, therefore, that they will find Amendment No. 52 acceptable and will agree that No. 33 and No. 56 should also be incorporated in the Bill so as to maintain the present consistency between these various provisions. Amendments No. 53 and No. 57 are consequential drafting Amendments.

Mr. John: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these Amendments. It was because I thought that there were potentially serious categories included within the provision for the making of byelaws that I suggested increased penalties. I am grateful that he has been able to accede to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35

PROVISION BY OTHERS OF INFORMATION FOR THE AUTHORITY AND SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 39, line 12, at end insert:
'or as an insurer of aircraft'.
This Amendment gives effect to my assurance to the Committee that the Authority would be given the necessary power to obtain information from British insurers. I do not regard this as an essential power but I accept that the Authority should be able to obtain the information it needs from all connected with British civil aviation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38

GENERAL POWERS

Mr. Bishop: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 44, line 20, leave out '(ii) be terminated' and insert:
'no appointment shall be terminated under paragraph (d) of the preceding subsection'.
This Amendment concerns the British Airways Board, its constitution and general functions. The Clause says that
… the appointment of a person as the chairman of either of the corporations"—
which, I think, means B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—
shall not—
(i) be made unless he is a member of the Board and the Secretary of State approves the appointment …
and, secondly, that the period of his office shall not be terminated
… unless the Secretary of State approves its termination;
This is tied up with subsection (d) of the same Clause which says that:
Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the Board shall have power—to appoint such persons as the Board thinks fit as the chairmen, deputy chairmen and other members of the corporations and to terminate any appointment made by virtue of this paragraph notwithstanding anything in the terms on which the appointment was made.
It seems that although in the case of dismissal the chairmen shall have recourse to the Secretary of State who shall endorse the dismissal, this does not apply


to the other members mentioned in subsection (d). This includes the deputy chairman and other members of the Corporations.
We think that this is quite objectionable, because it does not give them any kind of security or appeal against dismissal. That refers to all the members of the Corporations, except for the chairmen. Although Clause 38(2)(d) says that no person whose appointment is terminated shall lose any entitlement to damages or compensation as a result of the dismissal we find these provisions objectionable.
The Industrial Relations Bill seeks to lay down a code of conduct. The Government claim that work-people must have rights. Here is a situation where the Government could have demonstrated their concern for the rights of the individuals concerned. One wonders whether the Industrial Relations Bill will apply here. The Clause does not lay down the rights of the deputy chairmen and the members of the Corporations who can be summarily dismissed without appeal to the Secretary of State, unlike the chairmen of the Corporations. In Committee my hon. Friends and I sought to restrict the conditions of dismissal to those who had been absent for a specified number of meetings without permission, to those who had become bankrupt or incapacitated through physical or mental illness and to those unable to fulfil their functions. The Amendment was rejected by the Minister, and we have to fall back on the safeguards which this Amendment seeks to impose.
In the Bill there is power of dismissal without reason being given and without appeal in the case of all members of the Corporations except the chairmen. This is an arbitrary kind of dismissal and appears to be the policy of the Government. Who are the kind of people most likely to be at risk in this situation? They include some of the members who display the attributes which may have justified their appointment. They would include those whose knowledge and experience of the world of commerce and civil aviation is greatly needed by any authority such as the Corporations.
We know that civil aviation and the world of aerospace is an exciting and demanding one, stretching into the unknown. In the past Britain has become

great because fearless men sailed the seas into uncharted areas and crossed unknown lands. Today we need men and women with the same kind of daring as the merchant venturers and those running civil aviation need the courage and daring of those who fly. We need those kind of people on the boards of our Corporations. I am not suggesting that B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. members lack any of these attributes.
We are concerned about the future. The Minister said in Committee that we have all had experience of the awkward, probing chap, and he agreed that such members were often extremely valuable members. He went on to say that, in his experience, provided it is done constructively, most boards are only too delighted to have someone who fulfils that kind of function. If the Minister's words mean what many of us think they mean he must have been in disagreement with his colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications who, evidently finding Lord Hall an awkward chap, sacked him from the Post Office. Not only that, Lord Hall is apparently still waiting for the compensation which would be paid to anyone affected by similar circumstances under this Measure. So the Clause as worded does nothing to encourage, much less to protect, the venturesome individual.
9.0 p.m.
The progress of the air corporations and the development of airlines and aerospace will be far more enhanced by the daring of unconventional people like Sheila Scott than by the behaviour of the conventional striped-trousered creatures who have seats on boards and whose habitat is more likely to be the Stock Exchange, of which the Sheila Scotts of this world, and other women too, are not yet deemed fit to be members because of their sex. A further disadvantage is that the kind of person we should encourage to accept appointment to the corporations may not wish to risk being thrown out without a right of appeal and reasons being given.
The main objective of those who have framed the nationalised industries Statutes over the years has been to create a framework in which industry retains as much management responsibility as is consistent with preserving Parliamentary and public accountability. Fundamental


to that approach has been the security of tenure conferred on those who were appointed to the boards.
The Amendment carries with it the principle of justice to the community and to those who seek to serve the community. There is a strong case for the Minister accepting an Amendment which seeks to give justice to the chairmen of the Corporations, and to give rights of reasons for dismissal and appeal to the Secretary of State, so that they have conditions at least equal to those enjoyed by the people who at present head our Corporations.

Mr. Noble: I promised in Committee to look at this problem. I have considered it very carefully and have reached the conclusion that no such safeguard can be written into the Bill without unduly eroding the Airways Board's status. I know that I shall have the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) solidly with me on this, because he is continually saying how important it is to give these people independence, yet his hon. Friends are trying to take away one of the essential powers of the Airways Board.
Our intention is to give the Airways Board strategic control over B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., with powers which are broadly equivalent to those of a holding company in the private sector over its wholly owned subsidiaries. In fact, the powers of the Airways Board will be rather more limited in the termination of appointments than those of a holding company because, under subsection (2)(c)(ii), it will be unable to dismiss the chairman of either Corporation without the Secretary of State's approval, and under subsection (2)(d)(i) the tenure of existing members is preserved. However, any greater limitation on the Board's powers to dismiss members of the Corporation on the lines of the Amendment would make nonsense of the concept of an Airways Board with responsibility for and control over the public sector group of airlines as a whole.
Furthermore, if we were to depart further from the analogy of the holding company and to require the Secretary of State's consent to all dismissals from the boards of the two Corporations, we should also have to alter Schedule 10 of the Bill so as to involve the Secretary of State in

decisions on pensions and compensation, since he would have to take cognisance of these factors when considering the termination of appointments. Such a course would be totally incompatible with the concept of the Airways Board having controlling powers over the group.
I see no reason why a member of the board of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. should feel more insecure by the powers given to the Airways Board in subsection (1)(d) than he would feel on the board of a wholly-owned subsidiary of a private sector holding company. In either case he would be entitled to damages or compensation where appropriate. It would also be exceedingly odd to enable the Secretary of State to veto the dismissal of a man in whose appointment he had had no say. I do not think we shall get anywhere by saying that hot pants are better than striped pants in the board room. I feel that we have struck the right balance in preserving the freedom and independence of the Board, so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. I recommend the House not to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman was rather mistaken since I was referring throughout to the Civil Aviation Authority. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the board, which is a rather different matter.

Mr. Noble: I accept that it is a different matter, but the hon. Gentleman said that this Bill was my poodle. I would merely say tha I keep my poodle rather better clipped.

Mr. Bishop: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying out the promise he gave in Committee to reconsider the situation, but we are disappointed with his reply. It is nice to realise that at this late stage the Minister is getting sensitive about the amount of interference or intervention, according to how one looks at it, that he or the Secretary of State may have in regard to this legislation. It is a fact that in some 10 pages of the Bill there are no fewer than 60 references to the power of the Secretary of State in respect of approval, intervention or interference and there are also references in a similar context to the Treasury. In a Bill of over 90 pages, this suggests that there are probably over 500


references in the Measure to ways in which the Secretary of State can intervene. I feel that this is a justifiable kind of intervention if it brings justice to the individual.
I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman was serious in saying that the Amendment would mean altering Schedule 10 and other parts of the Bill. Surely if the Amendment would bring about more justice, then any administrative inconvenience involved in changing the Measure, even at this stage, is surely justified. Despite the Minister's reply, I hope that he will have second thoughts during the later stages of this Measure.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 39

REVIEWS OF ORGANISATION

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 44, line 31, leave out 'also'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I hope that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment, Amendment No. 37.

Mr. Noble: That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These Amendments have been put down to take account of the removal from the Bill in Committee of former Clause 38 which placed a general duty on the Airways Board
to exercise its powers in a manner calculated to secure that the air transport services provided by the group are developed to the best advantage and the resources of the group are used to the best advantage".

Clause 39 puts a duty on the Board to review the organisation of the group's affairs to determine whether it is calculated to secure
that the services and resources mentioned in the preceding section are developed and used as there mentioned".
The "preceding section" has now been dropped because the Committee took the view that the general duty in former Clause 38 was too imprecise while recognising that a general duty drafted with precision might be exceedingly difficult to operate.

The second Amendment therefore substitutes the words "the most efficient

manner" for the words in Clause 39(1)(a) after "in" in line 38. The first Amendment, which deletes "also" from line 31, is consequential on the removal of former Clause 38.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 37, in line 38, leave out from 'in' to end of line 41 and insert 'the most efficient manner'.—[Mr. Noble.]

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 45, line 5, after 'section', insert:
'and laying a copy of it before each House of Parliament'.
This amends Clause 39(3) in such a way as to establish that, before the Secretary of State can give directions to the Airways Board on the organisation of the group's affairs, he must lay before Parliament a copy of the report that the Board is required by subsection (2) to make on its conclusions arising from the review under subsection (1)(a).
This is no more than a minor change to subsection (3) on which there was a good deal of discussion in Committee. However, it makes explicit the order of events which is implicit in the present text. I think that this will be welcomed.
In commending the Amendment to the House, I should like to say again, as I said in Committee, that it is this Government's intention, as I imagine it would be the intention of any other Government, to be entirely open with the House about the use of their powers under the subsection.

Mr. Millan: It was my impression that this was simply a drafting Amendment. However, when the Minister announces a major change of policy and says that the Government will be entirely open with the House, perhaps it has a wider significance.
I welcome the Amendment. It makes the Clause more explicit and it also makes it clear that hon. Members will have an opportunity of seeing these reports before directions are given by the Secretary of State. That was the point at which I asked the right hon. Gentleman to look, and I am grateful for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40

SECRETARY OF STATE'S DIRECTIONS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ETC.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 45, line 24, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'relevant body'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment, I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments:

No. 41, in line 27, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'body',

No. 42, in line 30, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'body',

No. 43, in line 32, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'body',

Amendment No. 44, in line 33, at end insert:
(1A) In paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection 'relevant body' means—

(a) any undertaking of which all the issued share capital is held, directly or through a nominee, by the Board or one of the corporations; and
(b) any other undertaking which, if such of its issued share capital as is held directly or through nominees by each of the corporations and each such undertaking as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph were held by the Board, would be an undertaking falling within the preceding paragraph.

Mr. Millan: We have now arrived at the Clause which, among other matters, deals with the hiving-off powers of the Secretary of State. As we on this side of the House made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, we are opposed to the whole Clause and its concept in that it deals with hiving-off. No doubt my right hon. Friend and others who catch your eye on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will reiterate our distaste at the Clause.

The Amendment has a narrower but nevertheless important objective than the removal of all the offending provisions in the Clause. The Amendment which might have done that, unfortunately, has not been selected.

I drew attention to one objectionable feature of the Clause when I pointed out in Committee that it enabled the Secretary of State to require the British Airways Board to secure that any subsidiary

or joint subsidiary discontinued or restricted certain activities or disposed of certain of its assets and property. I made the point that this was especially objectionable in the case of joint subsidiaries which are owned 50/50 with outside private interests. We on this side of the House object to the nationalised corporations getting these directions, in any case. But it also seems quite wrong in principle to say to the Board that it must in effect take certain action which will be detrimental not only to its own interests, which is bad enough, but also to outside private interests. In Committee the Secretary of State did not consider this a terribly good argument, but I have since had indications that he now realises the force of the argument which I then put forward.

9.15 p.m.

The wording of the Amendments is rather different from that of the Amendments I moved in Committee, but it has the same effect. The Amendments would direct subsection (1)(c) only to wholly-owned subsidiaries of the British Airways Board. In other words, where there were joint subsidiaries it would not be possible for a direction to be given which would act to the detriment of the private interest concerned. The Government's main power will remain under subsection (1)(b), which we consider offensive but are unable to do anything about at this stage, but the Amendment to paragraph (c) to a large extent effectively protects the interests of the Board and also of the outside people, whoever they may be, who in good faith entered into joint enterprises with the nationalised corporations, not expecting the Government to come along in future and, completely at their discretion, damage the joint enterprise which had been freely entered into.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) put down similar Amendments in Committee with the intention of restricting the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 40(1)(c) so that they could be used only in relation to wholly-owned subsidiaries or joint subsidiaries in the way that these Amendments do.
In Committee I spoke against the Amendments mainly on the ground that minority shareholders in subsidiaries of


the Airways Board or of the two Corporations had a degree of assurance from subsection (2), which requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that implementation of his directions will not impede or prevent the proper discharge of the Board's duties; and that the protection of the Companies Act would be available to minority shareholders in these companies in the same way as it is to such shareholders in companies where the controlling interest lies in the private sector.
These arguments remain valid. Nevertheless, I have been thinking about this problem. I accept that it might be more difficult to attract private capital into subsidiary companies of the public sector airlines if the Secretary of State were to be given the power in the present text of subsection (1)(c). I am therefore prepared to accept, and to recommend the House to accept, the Amendments, which would have the effect of restricting the Secretary of State's powers of direction under subsection (1)(c) to wholly-owned subsidiaries or wholly-owned joint subsidiaries of the Airways Board and the two Corporations.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendments, and I recommend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 41, in page 45, line 27, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'body'.

No. 42, in page 45, line 30, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'body'.

No. 43, in page 45, line 32, leave out 'subsidiary or joint subsidiary' and insert 'body'.

No. 44. in page 45, line 33, at end insert:
(1A) In paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection 'relevant body' means—

(a) any undertaking of which all the issued share capital is held, directly or through a nominee, by the Board or one of the corporations; and
(b) any other undertaking which, if such of its issued share capital as is held directly or through nominees by each of the corporations and each such undertaking as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph were held by the Board, would be an undertaking falling within the preceding paragraph.— [Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 45, line 42, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 45.

This Amendment is concerned with another matter which I raised in Committee and, indeed, on Second Reading. As the Clause is worded, it is possible to have a situation in which directions given by the Secretary of State on the hiving off of parts of the undertaking would conflict with the requirements of the Board under Section 51(2)(b) which deals with the financial obligations of the Board
so to conduct its affairs as to secure that the revenue of the group is not less than sufficient for meeting charges properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another.
Where that happened, the directions were to override that obligation.

I said during the Second Reading debate, and in Committee, that it seemed to be thoroughly objectionable explicitly to say that hiving-off could be done, with detrimental effect to the Board's obligation to run its affairs efficiently, and not only to mean that in terms of the Clause but to say explicitly that where that happened the directions would override the financial duty. That seems to be allowing the political dogma of the Government to override the financial probity of the Board. It is to remove that offending phrase that I have tabled the Amendment, and I have had indications that the Government, very sensibly, have had a change of heart on this matter, too.

Mr. Noble: As the least dogmatic of all people, I am glad to be able to accept the Amendment. Even though I spoke against it in Committee, it was not from the point of view of dogma, and I am delighted to say that, having thought about it, I believe that the Amendment is right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49

CONTROL OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND OF HIRING OF EQUIPMENT

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 50, line 21, leave


out 'the taking on' and insert 'demise, lease or'.
The Amendment would have the effect of putting into the Bill the terminology that was used in Section 49(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. I understand from my right hon. Friend that the view of his advisers is that my proposed wording has the same meaning as the words in the Bill. That being so, is there any reason why there has been a change? Second, can my right hon. Friend give me an undertaking that the words now in the Bill will be interpreted in a court of law in the same sense as the words which I seek to import from the 1949 Act?

Mr. Noble: This is where I have to move from being, or not being, dogmatic, to the much more tricky field of legal advice. I am assured that the precedent of the 1949 Act is not a particularly happy one, and that the words that are used there are not necessary. I have been told that I can categorically assure my hon. Friend that the words in the Bill cover all the purposes which he seeks to import from the 1949 Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57

DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATIONS

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 54, line 32, leave out from 'If' to 'may' in line 34 and insert:
'the report last made in pursuance of section 39 of this Act includes a statement that in the opinion of the Board either of the corporations should be dissolved, the Secretary of State'.
The Amendment reflects the intention of an Amendment put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). The Clause empowers the Secretary of State, after consulting the Airways Board, to make an Order dissolving either of the Corporations and transferring its property rights and liabilities to the Board. Such an Order is exercisable by Statutory Instrument subject to approval in draft by affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
The Amendment has the effect of denying the Secretary of State any power to make such an Order unless the Airways Board has reached the conclusion that either of the Corporations should be dissolved, and has so stated in the last report made to the Secretary of State under Clause 39(1)(b). This limitation seems appropriate, in view of the intentions of this Government and their predecessor to allow the Airways Board's studies from within the industry to reveal whether some closer integration between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. would be desirable, and, if so, how far and how fast integration should go. But if the Board were to pronounce against dissolution of either Corporation, it seems unreasonable that the Secretary of State should have the power to force a dissolution against the Board's judgment. I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Millan: This is an important Amendment and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward in consequence of an undertaking which the Under-Secretary gave in Committee.
As the Bill is drafted, it would be possible for the two Corporations to be dissolved even if the British Airways Board was against that, and without the formal review  snder Clause 39. This seemed objectionable to us and the Government accepted in Committee that they could conceive of no circumstances in which the Minister might wish the complete merging of the Corporations, which is what Clause 57 is about, unless the Board had recommended this to them.
The Amendment therefore represents— although one cannot envisage circumstances a number of years hence—a considerable limitation of the Secretary of State's power in favour of the Board. I welcome it very much. It is very much in line with our own thinking in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONSTITUTION ETC. OF CLVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

Mr. Bishop: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 65, line 19 leave out 'and remuneration'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 50, in page 65, line 27, out 'and remuneration'.

Mr. Bishop: I hope that the Minister's good will in accepting our Amendments will continue a little longer, because these Amendments are very important. We are concerned about paragraph 12 of the Schedule, dealing with staff, which says:
The Authority may appoint such officers and servants as it may determine with the consent of the Secretary of State as to numbers and remuneration …
We believe that the Secretary of State should not involve himself with remuneration.
There is an extra hurdle for the employees in this connection. Paragraph 12(4) says:
The Secretary of State shall not give his consent in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph except with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.
Although this is not specified, we recognise that this is another hurdle, the evil genius behind our prices and incomes policy—who may be the Prime Minister himself. In this situation, we are concerned not only with pay but also with pensions, allowances and gratuities as well.
The Bill deals with a situation in which civil servants will no longer be civil servants. One would have thought that they should be in the same position as employees in any commercial concern to bargain alternative arrangements. The Schedule requires that adequate machinery in the negotiation and settlement of pay claims should be set up.
After the many hours of debate on the Industrial Relations Bill, even the most industrially ignorant Member must begin to realise that the basic reason behind many of our industrial troubles— the unrest and possibly the strikes—is the frustration arising from slow and cumbersome negotiation followed by a veto on agreed levels of pay. That may well be the situation in these circumstances.
9.30 p.m.
After the Authority and the staff have come to terms—that may take a considerable time, perhaps a year—the agreement may not be ratified by the Secretary of State, but if it is, then it

may not be endorsed by the Minister for the Civil Service. Then there is the extra time limit that is involved, with all the frustrations and ensuing industrial troubles that may flow from that.
Commenting on Schedule 1 in Committee the right hon. Gentleman claimed the right of the Secretary of State to intervene because, he said, in the first few years the Government would be paying a subsidy—that is, until the C.A.A. becomes self-supporting in, it is hoped, five or six years. Some may claim that this gives the Government a moral right to endorse remuneration levels, but is this principle to be applied to other industries, both private and public, to which the Government give financial assistance? If so, is this not a dangerous precedent to set in this Measure?
After all, it could apply to any situation where the Government advance money to help lame ducks, whether in the public or private sector. Will the Government have to agree to all pay claims before they are settled? This seems a most dangerous precedent to set.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the real purpose was to control the levels of remuneration of the senior staff, but he could not define what he meant. We must, therefore, take it that he means everyone—he said as much himself— which seems a hamfisted way of drafting a Measure of this kind.
I suspect that the real reason is the introduction of a form of back-door incomes control. It ill becomes a Government who are shuffling off the cost—of many of the services they provide in air navigation and so on—on to the shoulders of the C.A.A. and, subsequently, on to the passengers by higher fares, to seek to lighten the load in the first few years and, in so doing, to stake a right for all time to control salaries and wages in this sphere.
If the Minister is sincere in what he says—and I do not doubt his sincerity —about the C.A.A. in the first few years until it becomes self-supporting, he should at least amend the Bill to ensure that when that stage has been reached and the Authority is not in receipt of Government help, the Government will no longer be interested in endorsing the remuneration of the staff. This is justified in the circumstances.
Both Ministers proved to be extremely pleasant fellows throughout our Committee deliberations. Time and again they agreed absolutely with what we sought to do, though they would not agree with the way we sought to do it. I certainly could not accuse them of any sinister intrigue, but I fear I cannot say the same of some of their Government colleagues.
It seems to many of us that as the Government were elected on a pledge and promise to take Whitehall off the backs of the people and stop interfering in our affairs, the Minister should accept this chance to enhance his reputation, following the excellent way in which he has conducted these proceedings, by finally saying that he agrees with us. He cannot have any real reason to oppose the Amendment. I trust that he will now say, "We no longer intend to veto wage claims in these cases".
Considering that there are over 500 references in the Bill which enable the Minister to intervene in what the Authority is doing or wants to do, the right hon. Gentleman should take the advice which he gave me about it not being good for the Government to intervene in endorsing and terminating, except in the case of the chairmen of the Corporations. He should accept his own advice and accept the Amendment. An important principle is at stake and I trust that the sort of precedent to which I have referred will not be set—or are we to take it that the Government wish to interfere in other sectors where financial help is given?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am sure that the Minister is aware that recently the chairman of the Air Transport Licensing Board complained publicly, and quite bitterly, that his staff were being drafted to set up the new Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that the Minister will not think that this is a Committee point, because it has occurred since the Committee Stage ended and is a very recent development. Since the Minister appears to have given unto himself the power to regulate the pay and conditions of some of the servants of the Authority, obviously he will have to give consent to their recruitment. I refer the Minister to the precedent set by the creation of the Air Transport Licensing Board, which also

meant the recruitment of civil servants to set up the new Board. In the setting up of that Board I understand that the staff were given the choice of returning to their old Department if they wished after a period of service with the new Board.
If A.T.L.B. and other staff are to be drafted to staff the new Authority, and if they are not to be given the choice of returning to their old Departments after 12 months, this seems to be a rather serious matter. Though it is not, perhaps, directly related to the point made by my hon. Friend, I hope that the Minister can provide some reply tonight because this is becoming a very important issue.

Mr. Noble: I will try to give an answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) before I conclude my remarks.
The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) followed the line of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in saying that this was the way in which the Government were trying to operate an incomes policy in restricted areas, particularly of the public service. But this is completely to misunderstand the purpose of these words. The power to control remuneration here is no different from the power in Schedule 1 to the Development of Tourism Act, 1969, which the hon. Gentleman's Government introduced and which equally had nothing to do with their incomes policy. The purpose of this power, just in the same way as the power in that Act, is to provide for control over the expenditure of a grant-aided body. The hon. Gentleman is quite content to retain control over staff numbers, but he must realise that this by itself would be insufficient for that purpose without a parallel control over the levels of their pay.
I repeat what I said to the Committee. The intention is to exercise this control only over senior officials of the Authority, and here, again, the example I gave was of those at the level of Assistant Secretary and above in the Civil Service, who receive, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a pretty high level of pay. It is certainly not our intention to exercise this control in such a way as to impede the Authority in carrying out its functions. To these assurances I can now add that we have not included this power for the purpose


that the hon. Gentleman has attributed to us. Rather sadly, because it so happens that this is the last Amendment appearing on the Order Paper, I must ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
I will write to the hon. Member for Nuneaton about the answer to his question, because my appreciation of the information that has been brought to me is not entirely clear, and I cannot give him the answer that I should like to give.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I stress that this is a most important point which must involve many of the officials in the Minister's Department. The Chairman of the A.T.L.B. has publicly expressed concern about it.

Mr. Noble: This is just the reason why I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman. I know what the answer is as regards the Air Registration Board staff but not as regards the A.T.L.B. staff. I do not want to mislead either the hon. Gentleman or the House by giving an inaccurate answer.

Mr. Bishop: I am disappointed that even at this late stage the Minister has not been forthcoming. However, there is no doubt that the terms of the negotiations on pay and numbers are probably within the ambit of the National Joint Council.
I am glad that the Minister recognises the importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). Will the Minister consider adding that letter to the bundles which he has sent to members of the Standing Committee; and perhaps he will consider making it an appendix to the Committee's proceedings?

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES TO THE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 51, page 70, line 4, leave out from 'at' to 'but' in line 8 and insert:

'a price equal to so much of the initial debt as is determined by the Secretary of State to relate to those assets'.—[Mr. Noble.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 52, page 90, line 4, at end insert:
8A. In section 9(3) of the Airports Authority Act 1965 (under which a contravention of byelaws under that section may be punished by a fine of an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds for the words "twenty-five pounds") there shall be substituted the words "one hundred pounds".

No. 53, in line 5, leave out 'the Airports Authority Act 1965' and insert: 'that Act'.

No. 54, in page 93, line 4, leave out 'in subsection (2)' and insert:
'the words from "or of such persons" onwards shall be omitted.
(2) In subsection (2) of that section'.

No. 55, in line 6, at end insert:
and the words "or under the direction of" shall be omitted'.

No. 56, in line 34, at end insert:
24A. In section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968 (under which a contravention of byelaws under that Act may be punished by a fine of an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds) for the words 'twenty-five pounds" there shall be inserted the words "one hundred pounds",

No. 57, in line 35, leave out 'the Civil Aviation Act 1968' and insert: 'that Act'.—[Mr. Noble.]

Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 95, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
In section 28, subsection (1) the words from 'or of such' onwards, and in subsection (2) the words 'or under the direction of'.— [Mr. Noble.]

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Noble: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is with some pleasure that I rise to move the Third Reading of the Bill. I need hardly say that this is an important Bill, not only for the future of British civil aviation but also as part of the process of improving the machinery of government. It is also a long and complex Bill and I should like at this point to say how grateful I am—I believe that the House will share my feeling—to the


Standing Committee for the expeditious and workmanlike way in which the Bill has been considered. I was struck by the high level of debate which was achieved on many occasions throughout the Committee's 16 sittings. As a result the Bill has come from Committee with many substantial improvements to it, and I should like to touch briefly upon some of these.
One issue above all others which has run as a thread throughout all our discussions, and which has been evident again today, is the difficult question of achieving the right balance between independence and control, in relation both to the Authority and to the British Airways Board.
All concerned have been anxious to ensure the greatest possible freedom for both bodies, consistently with the fundamental need for Parliament to retain its ultimate control over the policies which are to be pursued. This balance has been shifted in a number of significant ways, and I think I am right in saying that it has been shifted in all cases towards greater freedom.
In particular—I acknowledge here my indebtedness to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo)—we have taken out the power for the Secretary of State to give general directions in the national interest; we have today, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), reduced the scope of the power of direction under Clause 4(1), and, on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), we have limited in a very reasonable way the scope of the power of direction in Clause 24(2).
In addition, we have provided that directions given under Clause 28(2) should, like those given under Clause 4 and Clause 24(2), be published in the Authority's annual report.
Another improvement that we have made, in a number of places, is to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Authority before exercising certain of his powers.
Another area in which improvements have been made concerns the Airworthiness Requirements Board, where it is now provided that more than half the members of it should be representative of the interests named in Clause 27(4)(a) and

where we have now provided in Clause 20 for the Authority to publish in its annual report particulars of any instance where it does not accept the advice and recommendations of the Board on the matters covered in Clause 27(2). I think that I can now say with some confidence that in almost every respect the Bill as it now stands reflects and take account of the most helpful advice we have had from the A.R.B. Indeed, I think that the only exception is the point covered by Amendment No. 28.
I do not want to protract this catalogue unduly, but I should mention one other place where—though "I says it as shouldn't"—the Bill has been improved, and that is by the addition of what is now Clause 29. This makes small but useful improvements to our existing powers for controlling aircraft noise and, more importantly, extends those powers to cover any aerodrome licensed for public use.
I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into any great detail about this now, but I should perhaps make it quite clear that this Clause does not purport to provide the ultimate solution to the noise problem—I would certainly make no such claim for it—but it will, I hope, enable us to contain the problem, and prevent the situation from deteriorating further, until such time as quieter aircraft engines are in general use and until the third London airport at Foulness comes fully into operation.
We have also improved Part III dealing with the British Airways Board, although here our task has perhaps been rather easier since much less new ground has had to be explored than in the case of the Authority.
As I say, this is now a better Bill, and we should all be grateful, as I am, to all the members of the Commitee for their hard work in contributing so ably to this result. We may now hope that, after it has been further considered in another place, it will receive the Royal Assent at a date that will now be not too far removed. There will then remain a good deal to be done, especially so far as the Authority is concerned. The various regulations will have to be made, for the procedures of the Authority, for the appeals and for the regulation of travel organisers under Clause 26. There will also be a major organisational and


administrative task to be completed before the Authority can start work.
None the less, I am still hopeful that everything can be completed in time for the Authority to be able to start work in the early part of next year, even though some of the details about land and so on may have to be sorted out afterwards. I hope also that the Airways Board, which involves rather less of this kind of preparatory work, will be able to start its work at the beginning of next year. In the very fluid situation in which the industry now finds itself, I am sure that the House will agree that that will not be too soon for it to start tackling the very difficult job we are giving it, of shaping the future of the public sector of the industry.
Now that the Bill is making such rapid progress, we are in a position to start thinking in concrete terms about whom to appoint to the two new Boards we are setting up, and I hope that it will be possible to start announcing names in the not too distant future, perhaps towards the latter part of the summer recess.
Before I sit down there is one final thing I should like to say. Apart from one particular matter we have debated this afternoon, we have been fortunate to see an unusual degree of consensus as to the objects we are trying to achieve in the Bill, even though there has been ample room for argument about particular aspects. I believe that this above almost anything else should give great assurance to all concerned, within the industry and among its friends outside, as to the degree of support which our airlines may hope to enjoy in the difficult future that lies ahead. For this we must all thank Sir Ronald Edwards and the members of his Committee for the wisdom of the recommendations they made.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Mason: I join the Minister for Trade in mentioning the sterling work Ronnie Edwards and his team put into their report, from which much has flowed. No doubt they are very pleased that we are reaching the final stages of a major Bill which will determine the future of a vast and important industry.
On the whole, I think that it is a good Bill, worthy of our support. As the

right hon. Gentleman knows, I have lived, and at times suffered, during the whole of its conception. We are to witness the establishment of a new Civil Aviation Authority, a new, powerful and more independent civil aviation regulator with the hiving-off of about 7,000 civil servants into a new form of public corporation. We shall see the gradual development of an umbrella authority that will cover all our aviation services, plan the industry's growth, control licensing and airworthiness and, above all, I hope, make certain that it provides good working relations within all sectors of the industry and good working conditions in all its participants. This is going to be a major and unique constitutional change.
The second major change is to create the British Airways Board, which will oversee our two Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and undoubtedly, as they will realise, there are many opportunities for them to work more closely together, to marry some of their common services and to increase their efficient competitiveness to be better fitted to compete with their international rivals. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are a credit to the nation, and particularly they must be seen to be so at present. While their international counterparts have suffered considerably in the past two years, they have read the market well and have anticipated the trends better than most. They have just survived a depressing downturn in world aviation activities. The Airways Board will no doubt forge them into more formidable units in future, and that will initially be its main task.
The Bill, whilst not perfect, is urgently needed and I hope that it will go some way towards ending the uncertainty in the industry. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it has undergone the rigours of 16 sittings in Committee and I should like to thank all the members of the Committee, as he did, but particularly my hon. Friends, who played an important part in the Committee proceedings, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who bore the brunt of the burden of carrying the Committee stage through from our side, and my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and Pontypridd (Mr. John). They, too, did sterling work and questioned at great length matters on which we expressed


great concern on Second Reading. Credit is also due to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He, too, was an active participant and he also on Second Reading shared our doubts about too much Ministerial intereference. Between them, he and my hon. Friends had some successes and I think that most of us would agree that the Bill has been improved.
But we still have some concerns. Clause 3 remains objectionable, and we shall watch very closely how the Minister's reference to the forced route transfers from the Corporations to Caledonian/B.U.A. will be a once-for-all transfer, because it has not gone unnoticed that Caledonian/B.U.A. has already tried to breach his ruling.
In that respect, we shall also watch the operation of Clause 22, which deals with the granting of licences among air transport operators. Apart from assessing their financial strength and viability, we hope that the Authority will be as keen on their safety record and the wages paid and the working conditions of the staff. It is this Clause and others that give the Civil Aviation Authority power, if it so determines, to enhance the authority of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport by asking all applicants for licences to join the National Joint Council and make it the industry's forum for proper consultation and improving man-management relations throughout the industry. We hope that this will be done.
The appeal procedure leaves still much to be desired, and in this respect Clause 24 is not entirely satisfactory. We do not want a repetition of the appeal farce and frustration which dogged the years of the Air Transport Licensing Board. The regulations due to flow from this Clause will be watched with this in mind. I hope, too, that the A.R.B., now the Airworthiness Requirements Board, will find a satisfactory and fairly independent rôle within the Authority.
Clause 40, which gives the Minister the long-stop power to hive off ancillary activities of the Corporations, creates the same heat and opposition from this side as Clause 3, which legislatively recognises Caledonian/B.U.A. Although the Minister has gone some way during

the afternoon's proceedings, his assurances have not entirely satisfied us, and we shall watch for any Order that comes before the House designed to impair the Corporation's activities and profitability. We shall keep a watching brief on the make-up of the Authority and the Board, and hope that the Minister will not ignore our request that consumer and trade union interests must be represented.
During Second Reading and in Committee most hon. Members expressed doubts about the independence of the Authority. Time and again members have protested against too much Ministerial interference. I hope that the Minister recognises this strong undercurrent of feeling against his interfering powers. A little of the interference has been curbed through Amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said on Second Reading, far from the Authority becoming "Mr. Mason's bulldog", it may become "Mr. Noble's poodle". This poodle tag must be avoided, or this great change will lose much of its impact, force and authority.
With the advent of the Bill, British civil aviation will have the spur to maintain its strong position in international civil aviation. It is a large industry, full of technological aviation skills, it is rich in experience and enterprise. It also requires intelligence and imagination in its investment programme because of the gestation period from design decision to investment return. All these stand to gain under the new Civil Aviation Authority. We are hopeful that the Authority and the Board will do well. They have a great task before them and, bearing in mind the few reservations I have expressed, this Bill has our blessing.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I particularly welcome Clause 29 of the Bill which was introduced in Committee, and vastly improves the Bill. My right hon. Friend will remember that I urged him on Second Reading to do this, and I am grateful to him for giving us power to control municipal airports. Luton is probably the most prominent target of this Clause. It is a thoroughly badly sited airport to carry out international operations. Yet this is precisely what its owners, Luton Corporation, are seeking to make it do.
I should like to give the House some idea of what happens at Luton because it is appalling that an airport can still be allowed to operate in these conditions. Aircraft taking off in a westerly direction have to perform two 45-degree turns soon after take-off. The effect of this is, first of all, to increase noise. When an aircraft is banked the noise level rises. It is impossible for the pilots to maintain proper route-keeping and in consequence there is a wide divergence of routes over what are laughingly called "minimum noise routes". As a result, aircraft fly over the large towns of Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted and Tring, causing immense annoyance.
The next difficulty arises from the fact that they do not climb straight into the air, as at other airports, leaving it all behind them. They have to fly to Beacon Hill before they are allowed to exceed 4,000 ft. Therefore they are flying a distance of 25 miles at around 3,000 ft. above sea level. Ground level is about 500 ft. less than that. The BAC 111 aircraft are allowed to fly at full power at 3,000 ft., and the noise at full power is shattering. The noise at night is far in excess of that which is permitted at Heathrow.

Mr. Adley: I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to do an injustice to the BAC 111. If the Boeing 707 were to take the place of the BAC 111, I am sure he would mention that as well.

Mr. Allason: I have been in correspondence with Rolls-Royce who said that the engines of the BAC 111 gave out no greater noise than any other engines, but the BAC 111 has a nasty crackle which gets through to the ground. There are many other aircraft which make nothing like the appalling noise of the BAC 111.
We have run into further trouble recently over easterly take-offs. The Department of Trade and Industry has decided that Brooklands Park beacon is too congested, and south-bound aircraft flying from Luton are not allowed to go to Brookman's Park. Instead, they have to turn and go to Beacon Hill, with the result that they fly over the town of Harpenden. Secondly, because they now have to fly on a different path they cross the route of other aircraft flying north and they are therefore given a height limit of 3,000 ft. while they are flying

over Harpenden and further on over my constituency.
Luton is such a badly sited airport that the noise is quite intolerable for those who live there. But that does not stop Luton Corporation, whose only idea is to extend the airport, extend the operations and do as much flying as possible each year.
The first control which should be imposed is on night flying. The night flying is all on charter work, and I do not believe that there is a need for charter flights to be made at night. If the Government would take a decision on night charter flights and ban them, there would be an enormous improvement. If the Government want to ban night flights merely from Luton because the situation at Luton is intolerable, good luck to them, but it would be fairer to ban them altogether. There is no need for night charter flights except to obtain maximum operating value from the aircraft, and night flights are the most efficient and, therefore, the cheapest way of doing it. But the cost falls on the consumer. It would be no disadvantage to the aircraft industry, the aviation industry and the travel industry if, by charging higher fares, they could maintain the same volume of business.
It is not as if charter holidays are des perately expensive or only just within reach of the people. The charges are well below the ordinary airline fares and the holidays represent a magnificent bargain. If night flying were abolished, costs would rise by about 20 per cent. Considering that one can have a splendid first-class weekend in Majorca for £14, it surely would not be considered exces-represented by a 20 per cent. increase. sive if the cost went up to £17, which is It will probably be said, "You are attacking those who want to go on holiday". but we ought to have some consideration for those who live underneath the path of these aircraft.
I have had two letters in the past week from which I should like to quote. The first is from somebody in Harpenden which, as I have said, is an area with a particular problem. The letter reads:
I wish once again to draw your attention to the appalling nuisance caused by jet aircraft flying into and away from Luton Airport. Though the intensity of the disturbance varies, a reasonable night's sleep has become a thing of the past.


The next letter is from Berkhamsted:
The noise in the early hours of the morning seems to be louder than ever."—
this is over the flying path itself—
I am elderly, 78 and in poor health after an eye operation but despite sleeping tablets, I am awakened at 3.20 a.m., and at 4 a.m. most mornings. One day last week it was 2.30 a.m.
These letters are typical.

Mr. Peter Rost: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not mentioned the many parents who are disturbed in their night's sleep, not so much by aircraft, but because their children are awakened by aircraft noise and, in turn, disturb their parents?

Mr. Allason: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and I could quote many other letters, but I do not want to detain the House. I asked the British Airline Pilots' Association whether this sort of noise could be avoided, and they told me that it can be avoided if aircraft take off at lower loadings. The trouble is that if an aircraft is fully loaded and has to climb into the sky, it will make a terrific noise getting up there. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to inform Luton that he intends to designate Luton just as soon as Clause 29 comes into effect so that it does not proceed with plans to increase and then further increase flying from Luton.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I will not take up the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), though I have considerable sympathy with the difficulties of his constituents. I would suggest that the answer to his problem is not to have half-empty charter flights flying around during daylight. Nevertheless, I agree that he has some cause for complaint.
I am sorry to disturb the happy atmosphere of consensus between the two Front Benches. I speak as one who has always disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on the whole concept of the second force, and indeed on whether the whole tenor of the Bill was ever necessary. I have always opposed one of the fundamental conclusions reached by the Edwards Committee, although I would not belittle the tremendous amount of research and

work that went into the presentation of its Report. My main reason for opposing the setting up of a Civil Aviation Authority is that I feel that this is the worst possible moment to go about it, since practically all the major international carriers are facing exceptional difficulties. With a few exceptions, they are making thumping great losses. Pan-American last year lost £27 million dollars; T.W.A. lost 83 million dollars; United Airlines, the biggest domestic carrier in the United States, lost 13 million dollars; American Airlines lost nearly eight million dollars in the United States. We also know that Q.A.N.T.A.S. as well as Sabena are in difficulties. It does not matter where one looks, the world scheduled international carriers are in profound difficulties.
It is at precisely this moment of time that the Government choose to set up with a great degree of protection their own cherished, independent second force airline. I cannot see the logic of it. I cannot see why even more competition is necessary when, all over the world, airlines are beginning to think about getting together and how they can reduce competition, especially on international scheduled flights. In the United States, it has gone even further. There the Civil Aeronautics Board has authorised carriers to get together on a co-operative basis with a view to reducing the number of frequencies that they operate. At the same time as the C.A.B. has authorised some major domestic carriers in the States to co-operate and collaborate in the reduction of frequencies, this Government and the Air Transport Licensing Board authorise unlimited frequency competition to B.E.A. on our domestic trunk routes from Caledonian-B.U.A. I cannot see the logic of creating this kind of airline philosophy at the present time.
My other main objection to the Bill is that again it fails to have the status that I should like to see it have to deal with many of the airline problems which, month by month, are developing in peculiar directions. I said earlier that this creature will be a weak-kneed one. I said that it will not have much power to take the initiative or to take final decisions. I still say that it is not just the general direction to preserve and protect Caledonian-B.U.A. in Clause 3 but the whole tenor and emphasis of the Bill which is discouraging for any new,


independent fledgling Civil Aviation Authority. Apart from Clause 3, whereby the Civil Aviation Authority has a clear directive to promote the interests of Caledonian-B.U.A., in Clause 4, if the Secretary of State changes his mind, he can once again tell the Civil Aviation Authority what to do in a different direction. Again, in Clause 24(2), he can even tell the Civil Aviation Authority what to do in the way of suspending operations completely while he takes a little time to think of a new policy by which again he can tell the Civil Aviation Authority what to do.

Mr. Onslow: That is not true.

Mr. Huckfield: If that is not enough, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make himself the final appeal court. It is clear that the new civil aviation authority will not be the Civil Aviation Authority. It will be the Government and the Secretary of State. It is from the right hon. Gentleman that the main powers, the initiative and the main directives of policy will come.
What is more, the Civil Aviation Authority is not even to have the power to consider such important matters as traffic rights and international air fares on its own initiative. Those are matters which are automatically considered by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States. In this country, they must be dealt with at the behest and under the direction of the Civil Aviation Authority. What is even worse is that, even when it gets round to considering important matters like traffic rights and international air fares, the Civil Aviation Authority cannot even deal with foreign carriers coming into the country. Once more we get to the situation where American supplemental and international scheduled airlines will not bother with the Civil Aviation Authority. As they always have, they will go to the Department of Trade and Industry. It is one more slap in the face for the Civil Aviation Authority and one more encouragement to the American operators to by-pass the Authority.
If we are to have a viable authority, let it be one which can stand on its own feet and evolve its own policy. I recognise that every State reserves the right, for balance of payments, national security and strategy reasons, to give directions to

its airlines. They are flag-carriers, and they have a great many non-commercial obligations. However, if that is to be the situation, let it be made clear publicly precisely what is to be the relationship between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State and how it will be expressed from time to time in the various directives and conversations exchanged between them. I am not happy that the kind of communications which are bound to transpire between the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority will be made sufficiently public.
I have never seen the logic of designating one airline to fulfil the rôle of a second force. I have never understood the need for a second force. However, if the purpose of the Bill, which, after all, is merely the protection and preservation of Caledonian/B.U.A., is to be implemented in full, the Secretary of State will find himself in increasing difficulties as Caledonian becomes subjected to more and more charter and international scheduled competition.
I should like now to turn to the charter sphere, in which I have an interest. I hope that this creation of the Minister's will give the Civil Aviation Authority some impetus to create for this country a charter policy. At the moment the Civil Aeronautics Board is evolving a definite charter policy. The Department of Trade and Industry is not. If the Civil Aviation Authority gets off the ground—I doubt whether it will fully get off the ground because of the restrictions placed upon it—and turns its mind to evolving a coherent charter policy, I shall be extremely grateful.
We have had reports of the kind which appeared in the Sunday Times last week and we have had various television and newspaper stories about flights being investigated in the early hours of the morning at Gatwick and Stansted. I hope that this sort of thing can soon be cleared up. I hope that there will be a change in the rules and regulations which will give the ordinary man in the street his right and proper chance to fly to those far away places.
Concerning the Board, there may be scope for some amalgamation and collaboration of activities between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. That is a matter which ought primarily to be left to the two airlines in conjunction with the Board. I


am not happy that this is the right way to do it.
Whatever happens, I still think that we should have some new kind of Civil Aviation Authority. The combination of the Air Traffic and Air Safety Boards with the commercial boards may be the best way, but if we were to combine the functions which the Federal Aviation

Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board perform in the U.S.A., we should at least accord it some greater degree of independence.
It seems that if this new creature— this foetus, although I do not know whether a foetus has life—is born, it will have an ever-lasting umbilical cord. It may be time to cut the cord now and recommend the termination of pregnancy.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has made an awfully stupid speech.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Not half as stupid as some of the rubbish which the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Onslow: It would be a kindness to say no more about the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am feeling kind, so I will say no more about it.
I should like to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for the kind things which he said about me, as he will agree, to his amazement, when he reads HANSARD. I think that he must have gone out to feel unwell. Clearly reaction was setting in.
I should like to get the tally straight. We have carried 64 Amendments in Committee, 41 of which were in the name of the Government, 14 in the name of the official Opposition, and nine came from elsewhere. So honours are fairly even. Hon. Members on both sides must undeniably be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for their sympathetic understanding and co-operative attitude which helped us to get along so well. It would be an unkindness on my part to repay them by making a long speech now. I do not intend to do that.
I simply want to show there are still one or two more things to be said about the Bill and that the work to be done in another place will not wholly be repetitive. For instance, it is worth putting on record that more time spent discussing airport policy would not necessarily be wasted. There is a gap there and a particular need for the evolution of some policy of corporate and private aviation. This must be a high priority in the near future. At the moment saturation is staring us in the face.
There may be a need for more to be said about safety. The Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators felt that Clause 2 was insufficiently specific about this, and I have no doubt their Lordships are well qualified to speak on this subject. I am told by those who take an interest in it that there is a need to say something about powered gliders, a matter in which

the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) is currently interested. I expect that that is a topic that will come to the surface in another place.
On the question of appeals, there is still the unanswered question why, under Clause 26, air travel operators are obliged to go to appeal in the county court in England, and sheriff court in Scotland. I am told that there are reasons, and it may be as well at some stage to have them on the record.
More seriously, there is a case for going a little deeper into the question of consumer representation and protection provided in the Bill. I know that there is unease about this amongst those who have taken an interest in the matter in the past. There is a feeling that the procedures and pre-hearings which appear to be contemplated as part of the consumer representation machinery may put the consumer at a disadvantage. I do not say that I necessarily agree with that, but I hope very much that reassurance can be given in another place.
Most importantly, I think that the question of consultation needs to be gone over a little more fully. There must be consultation in framing and drafting regulations under the Bill. It will obviously be very much in everybody's interests if those who have to deal with the regulations see them before they are carved in tablets of stone.
Clause 29, which gives the Secretary of State power to control operations at certain airports, could bear hardly on those who operate out of them on a commercial basis unless the provision for consultation were applied in a meaningful sense. I believe that it will be, but I hope that that, too, can be made clear.
Finally, on the question of costs, which was touched on earlier this afternoon, it needs to be understood that the competitive situation in which British airlines find themselves is one that is made keener all the time by the imposition of additional costs on them. However much certain hon. Members may welcome the prospect of an enormous elephant, or perhaps I should say an enormous airport, being built at Foulness, it will be the British Airports Authority that puts up the money, and the resources of that body are derived largely from the airlines themselves.
Having given that quick checklist for their Lordships, may I say that this seems to be an occasion for giving a welcome to the major changes which the Bill has brought. It marks the disappearance in its old form of the Air Registration Board—but the initials will remain, and I hope that the values for which the A.R.B. has always stood will be preserved and that those who have served on the A.R.B., and worked for it, will bring to the work of airworthiness the same dedication, concentration and independence of mind in the future as they have done in the past.
The Air Transport Licensing Board is a body which improves with acquaintance, if I may so express it, and appears to grow younger over the years, in defiance of the normal laws.

Mr. Warren: Only just.

Mr. Onslow: My hon Friend says, "Only just", but it seems to be getting younger with the years, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend picks the people who, within the C.A.A., will be responsible for air licensing matters he will not discard all the team which exists now within the A.T.L.B., because it has much useful expertise and a degree of independence to contribute.
On the question of the C.A.A., there are still some points which exercise some of us. We are not wholly clear where it is to be located. Perhaps it is premature to say much about that, but I hope that it will not be too inaccessible. We look forward to its report, and I hope that it will be as informative as the report of the Australian Civil Aviation authority. Perhaps Sir Donald Anderson, when he was here recently, was able to give my right hon. Friend some ideas on this, because this is a pioneering field in which the Australians have something to teach us.
It may be that not so much has been said about the nationalised corporations as some of us would have liked, but that does not mean that we are ignorant of their services to the community or ungrateful for them. They constitute a vital part of the economy. No one supposes that there is any doctrinaire or dogmatic intention to place in their way obstacles which they cannot overcome.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is at least consistent in

being wrong in his attitude to the second force and negative in his desire to see it disappear. Most of us do not want cutthroat competition between British airlines. We want co-existence and an increased ability to win a share of this profitable business to which British enterprise and skill are entitled.
Airlines do not exist for themselves or for those who work in them. They exist to serve the community and the Bill gives them the opportunity to do so more effectively. However, the letter of the law will always matter less than the spirit of those who interpret it. I hope that, whatever else may happen, the Bill will give new interest, new heart and new dynamism to the administration and direction of British civil aviation.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I could start off just as offensively as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and say that that was an awfully stupid speech—because to some extent it was. He spent two-thirds of his time pointing out to the other place the things that they had better do to improve the Bill and another part of his speech merely criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield).
It is not possible to co-exist in a competitive system. The very use of the words by the hon. Member is contradictory. Hon. Members might be a little more honest and follow through the logic of their thinking, if they are creating a second force, which must expand and develop mainly at the expense of the publicly-owned enterprises— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They can deny this if they like.
I am disappointed in my own Front Bench. There was a furore about the State-managed pubs in Carlisle, but that is small beer compared to this. There is something wrong with our sense of political priorities. I hope that my approach is not contradictory. I am a firm and convinced believer in Clause 4 —not of this Bill, but of the Labour Party constitution. I have the patriotic belief that anything which bears the hallmark of Government respectability, although Governments may come and go —I heard this argument in the debates


on the Tobacco (Health Hazards) Bill— carries a certain aura of respect, nationally and internationally. We are now saying, "We do not believe that, and if some guy can make a fast buck, we are all for it."
I notice this in small ways. The Minister for Trade, who has to travel up and down the country more often than some of his hon. Friends, will be aware of the moaning and groaning at the very efficient State lines by certain sections of the community who are unwilling to concede that any decent service can be provided by a public corporation. Others extol the non-existent virtues of private enterprise. It has been my experience—being reasonably fair-minded, I hope—that both lines on the domestic routes do not always fly to time and that all the other minor and major irritants can be found in any airline in the world.
Speaking as a layman without technical knowledge of these things, I am always amazed when going through, say. Heathrow Airport to see the amount of capital equipment lying about unused, all in the name of so-called competition. What is the point of having everything bigger and better if it is never used, or not used sufficiently?
I am reminded of what used to be said of Glasgow's tramcar system. We had blue, green and yellow tramcars and the people who travelled on the various routes would say that, for example, the yellow trams gave a better service than the blue ones, and so on. In fact, apart from the colour, they were exactly the same mechanically. Aircraft are essentially the same. I admit to being a layman in these technical matters, but I am not convinced about the need to praise one type of aircraft over another.
However, I am more concerned to see Britain, which is a small nation, making the best of the resources and skills at its disposal. I am not convinced by what hon. Gentlemen opposite say about the need to establish a second force and the extra traffic that will be attracted. I do not regard this as an intelligent use of our resources and I regret that my hon. Friends will not be voting against the Third Reading.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: Many of my hard-pressed constituents will

welcome the inclusion of Clause 29 in the Bill, though the Minister was right to point out that while it might restrain, it will not eliminate. I trust that at the earliest possible moment he will say how he intends to implement this provision.
Three categories of people are primarily concerned with this issue. First, there are the sufferers, and as one who lives at the end of a runway—and at the risk of giving some of my hon. Friends apoplexy—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that one can distinguish between aeroplanes from the noise point of view. These people, the sufferers, have a right to see where their future lies.
Second, we have those who earn their living in this industry, and they, too, should understand clearly where their future lies. And third, there are those who run airports and who in many instances are using them to subsidise the rates. It should be made clear to them what the loss would be to the rates if certain measures were carried out. This could, I believe, be done quickly, and I hope the Minister will do it.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I must begin by offering a comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons). The point I made about the BAC 111 was that the flights about which he complains are concerned with this aeroplane simply because the majority of flights from Luton are of the BAC 111. Incidentally, this aeroplane is not built in my constituency. If his constituents suffered from flights by, say, the Boeing 707 or the DC 8–50 into Luton, he would not be complaining about the BAC 111 but about those other aeroplanes.

Mr. Simeons: Four types of aeroplane use Luton, including those my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Adley: I will not pursue the matter further now.
Throughout this debate there has been a concerted attack by hon. Gentlemen opposite on my right hon. Friend, particularly in relation to the establishment of the second force. While this has been going on I have been waiting for the wide-eyed capitalists on the benches alongside me to jump to his defence in


support of the concept of the second force, but it is significant that none of them has done that.
I mention the second force for good reason. My predecessor who represented North-East Bristol is doing an outstandingly good job as the personnel director for that company. It is a splendid example of enterprise and when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) says that a second force or private airline cannot create new traffic, he is entirely wrong.
If there is evidence to prove conclusively that it can, consider what has been achieved in the last ten years by, for example, Caledonian and B.U.A. through the creation of package tours via charter flights. These have created a completely new market which simultaneously has given impetus to British aviation and provided holidays in the sunshine for millions of people.
B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have been rightly extolled. Just because we do not mention them every two minutes does not mean that we think any the less of them. They are highly respected internationally. The Bill will ensure that Caledonian-B.U.A., now cloaked in legality, will now prove a third member of a highly respected British family in the international civil aviation business.
I particularly welcome the Bill because it seeks to integrate the activities of the aviation industry into the community. This was badly needed. Recent events in the United States have highlighted the lack of communication between aviation and the public. In its timing, the Bill will prevent us from taking some of the unfortunate decisions taken recently in the United States.
I am sure that everybody welcomes Clause 29. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was a little mean in the way he failed to respond to the generous offer of my right hon. Friend to look again at Clause 29. In the other place I hope that we can take a long, hard look at the Clause because it can be considerably strengthened and improved. When I read the Clause I liked what I read. When I reached subsection 4(c) I was a little frightened because I had visions of a mass market developing in empty bent red and white oil drums, but when I reached subsection 4(d) my

mind was lightened when I realised that no aircraft would be prevented from landing because, in the act of landing, it might be contravening the Bill. That is a spendid thing to read!
The environmental issues have been mentioned at length by a number of hon. Members who do not always take part in aviation debates, and that is a healthy thing. I ask them and my right hon. Friend to do their best to ensure that we keep our heads on our bodies and not in the clouds regarding the environment and aviation. Clearly the industry has a tremendous part to play in protecting the environment, but we should be well advised not to condemn everything the industry does. We can learn a lot about this from the Americans. They have a procedure in Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act which was particularly relevant recently when they were discussing the supersonic transport, and what emerged from that was a respect for the facts—too late to save their S.S.T., but nevertheless welcome.
I have received some information from the Director of the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States showing clearly how the F.A.A. consulted the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the N.A.S.A., the Department of State, the Secretary of Defence and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. I would propose to my right hon. Friend that, under a suitable Clause of the Bill, we might set up an Office of Supersonic Transport Development in this country so that all these things can be open to public scrutiny, and so that the rumour-mongers can be exposed to scientific cross-examination.
We have had a very sympathetic Minister on the Bill. He has had wished on him the problems of noise and the legacy of Roskill. I hope that those of us who have interests in aviation have managed at least to let him know not only that we recognise our interest in promoting the industry with which we are so concerned but that also we are concerned with the environment.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Warren: The Bill when enacted will operate in the sphere of the environment. The implementation and effectiveness of the Act will depend principally on


the attitude of those responsible for making it work. We must be sure that those people have enthusiasm for civil aviation and a real belief in its future.
On Second Reading and in Committee I commented on the question of missing words from the Bill. The Long Title is:
A Bill to Establish a public authority concerned with civil aviation and to make provision as to the functions of the authority; to make further provision for regulating civil aviation".
I should have been much happier if it had been:
to establish a public authority concerned about civil aviation and to make provision for regulating and encouraging civil aviation".
In seeking to make the Bill when enacted effective, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that those selected for these tasks are real enthusiasts. I compare the words in this Bill with these words in another Government document on civil aviation which was published in March of this year and which says:
Even before the flight of the Wright Brothers, the Government recognised the need to maintain a policy supporting and encouraging the growth of civil aviation".
That is a United States Department of Transportation and N.A.S.A. document. It shows an initial attitude which I should have liked to see in the Long Title setting the tone right the way through the Bill.
Basic attitudes are cardinal to the ability of the Bill when enacted to be a useful encouragement to British civil aviation. I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that to get it off the ground we must let it stand on its own feet. Perhaps that is new mode of transportation which would appeal to my hon. Friends who live around Luton.
This is a remarkable industry, and the whole new mode of transport which has grown up in the twentieth century is not observed critically and is not sufficiently encouraged. There is no other industry in Britain which, in terms of productivity increase, can claim a multiplication factor of 20 since World War II. The direct operating costs of aircraft operating on our routes nowadays are only one-third of the direct operating costs of aircraft in operation in 1945.
In the general analogy of all the birds and forms of flight with which my right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is so often inflicted it is nice to be able to recognise that in aviation we have a duck which flies and which can lay golden eggs. However, it will continue to lay golden eggs only if it is encouraged and if there is a general feeling of enthusiasm for the task which lies before the C.A.A. and the British Airways Board.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), in his criticism of the Bill, rather over-simplified the United States situation. This is extremely dangerous, because it detracts from the growth style of this industry. There has been only a brief setback in United States civil aviation recently and, indeed, over the last 20 years the United States have had a growth factor of 10 in the number of passengers and amount of traffic carried on domestic airlines.
The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the reason for this setback. He forgot to mention the problems of over-capacity, the U.S. recession, inefficient competition and problems of scheduling which have caused many of the problems which the United States have had and which they now recognise. The hon. Gentleman tended to detract from the growth of the industry, which still continues at a rate of over 10 per cent. on a worldwide scale.
This is why I welcome the British Airways Board, because we are bringing together in that body two airlines— B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—which can share their facilities and get a better utilisation from them. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) wants to see a better utilisation it is a pity that, in a doctrinaire fashion he is against the Bill. The opportunity is much greater than even the British Airways Board, the combination of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., can tackle on its own. The Caledonian-British United Airways combination, the second force, is already a proved airline which made a success of the South American routes and had a very distinguished history in the air charter service, and it is one that we need to take advantage of the travel demands of people in this country.
I was very pleased that Clause 3(b), which caused so much turmoil among hon. Members opposite, said
… at least one major British airline


I hope that this will be merely the prelude, and that we can look forward to other major British airlines, because the demand is much greater than can be met by the system sought by hon. Members opposite, who seek to hold back the development of the whole air transport industry by confining it to a nationalised monster. The Clause provides for the best use of our resources and skills that the hon. Member for Provan, wants to see.
I hope that we have seen the end to route transfers. I have never regarded them as a satisfactory way of creating a new airline, and I do not think that it is a style of development which Caledonian itself would think should be its normal method of growing. There is a new style of demand, and the way in which affinity groups and charter groups are growing—even those going through Luton—means that more and more people are finding it possible to take their holidays by the use of air travel.
We welcome B.O.A.C.'s initiative with the Early Bird fares across the North Atlantic. It is interesting to see B.O.A.C a pace-setter, which it can be when it wants, and it is supported now by T.W.A. and Pan-American. We hope that in Montreal at this moment there are discussions in the International Air Transport Association which will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
My last point on the style of development of British aviation was touched on in part by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) when he talked about private aviation. The fastest-growing sector of aviation in this country in the first 10 years in which the Bill will be operating from 1972 onwards will be in corporate business aviation. That is where the great demand will come. That is why I want to see encouragement and some flexibility added to the way in which we look at aviation. I hope that the C.A.A. will be led by men skilled and experienced in the air transport industry, men who are keen to make sure that the industry expands and prospers. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will find those men and get them to accept the great challenge.
The Bill can provide for the whole of the British aviation industry, manufac-

turing and operating a great spur in the next decade.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the very skilful and at times charming way in which they have guided the Bill through its various stages. At no time did the smile on my right hon. Friend's face wilt, and nor did his distinctive button-hole. This smile seemed to survive the fiercest attacks by the Opposition.
We on this side will give an unqualified welcome to the Bill, which is a major step in the right direction. It is better than the complete standstill that has prevailed in civil aviation in recent years. The industry badly needs firm leadership and consistent policies if it is to develop for the benefit of the country as a whole.
The only two points that have been sadly neglected throughout the discussions that have gone on for some weeks are the commuter services and private aviation. The commuter services—the third-level and air taxi services, as the Edwards Report called them—have hardly been mentioned during the whole debate.
My right hon. Friend said that the United Kingdom is one of the few countries with a multiplicity of airlines. I agree with him. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said that he was pleased that the Authority would form an umbrella. Both these sectors within the Bill are not, to my mind, under that umbrella. I should like to see some recognition of the view of the Edwards Report that air taxi operations are likely to grow most rapidly in the next decade and, even more, that the third level services are a sector in which small-scale private ownership should rule.
I agree, too, with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) that this is the most neglected part of the industry. When the Edwards Committee was sitting, it found that there were 30 small airlines, of which five had scheduled services. But it pointed out that if an air transport association were to be established covering the whole industry, it might be sensible to have a subsidiary formation covering the private sector. I agree with


that finding. I feel that we are neglecting this sector of the aviation industry.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite who sit for Scottish constituencies would agree that the air services in Scotland at times are abysmal. The Highlands and Islands Development Board wanted its own subsidised air transport system, but, of course, one cannot have one's own subsidised air transport system without having some of the rich, feeder lines. One of the things the Authority should discuss is not any further second force airlines but a third force incorporating all these air taxi services.
I want to quote what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when I quizzed him on Second Reading. He said,
On the question of private flying; it is very easy, when debating the objectives and policies to be pursued in regulating civil aviation, to think only in terms of commercial aviation.
That is true. Throughout this Bill, we have thought almost entirely of commercial aviation. But he went on:
There is, however, a strong, important and thriving general aviation sector, which includes recreational and training flying done by flying and gliding clubs … The development and regulation of this sector will be the Authority's responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1277.]
I make a firm plea that when the Authority meets these two sectors will be immediately looked at and reported upon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SINGLE HOMELESS PERSONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

10.53 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: Some few weeks ago, Christian Action and an organisation called the Cyrenians produced a booklet and a set of principles, as it were, which have become known amongst those who have shown interest in this subject as "The Dossers' Charter". The charter and the subject matter of this debate are about people— people of no fixed abode, people with problems, people who, for various reasons,

in the main because they are single or unattached, have slipped through much of the net of the welfare provisions that we like to believe embrace most people with problems or who are in difficulties.
Christian Action approached me and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cardle)—who is to share the debate with me, and therefore I shall keep my remarks short so that he can put his point of view. The problem I want to highlight is mainly that of the single but unattached people who come under the category of what is generally known as "of no fixed abode".
These are usually people who are classified as homeless, even if they are living somewhere temporarily. Everyone is aware that local authorities and those concerned with housing tend to concentrate on homeless families and not so much on the individual. We are all aware of the difficulties encountered when we try to plead the troubles of someone who is not a pensioner but who is in need of accommodation.
There are those who have chosen to have no fixed abode—and I am not concerned for the moment with them. That is their choice and as long as they do not interfere with anyone else, I do not want to make an issue of them. The people about whom Christian Action is concerned, and the people mentioned in the booklet, are those who have not chosen to live without any fixed abode but whom society has in some way or other forced to live in this way.
There is the further complication that many of these people are not attractive and do not arouse our sympathy and compassion in the same way as perhaps the homeless family or the child in need of care and protection. The fact that they are homeless is often because they have severe problems. They may be dependent on drugs or they may be alcoholics—and alcoholics form a large proportion of the group about whom I am talking. They may be people who were discharged from mental hospitals and who are unable to cope adequately on their own and who drift around society. This problem is greater in our large cities because these people tend to come to them thinking that they will find some comfort there.
There are these categories of people who are not particularly lovable, who do not arouse our compassion and yet who are in the greatest need of support and help from the community and social services. A great deal is done to give supporting help to those in these categories. Even when we have these services and voluntary groups it is inevitable that some will slip through the net, and it is with these that I am concerned.
To give one example, which was mentioned recently in the national Press, there was one young woman who had spent a year in a mental hospital. She had nowhere to go and had severe problems. She was given the addresses of two hostels, but neither would give her accommodation because of her mental illness. They felt that she would be a problem for them. She wandered around for some time until she was given hospitality by Christian Action, which is one of the organisations that tries in a voluntary way to make provision for such people. I know that there are many cases where care has been given and people have been followed through, but there are also instances when this does not happen and it is these which should concern us all. The trouble is that we talk in overall terms and tend to miss such people. Not many seem to care what happens to them.
Another complication is that even where such people are capable of maintaining themselves there is a tremendous reduction in the amount of available accommodation in terms of lodging houses. The number is decreasing in our large cities where they tend to congregate. Even if they can look after themselves, many avenues are closed to them and they tend to drift, taking up unsatisfactory accommodation. To complicate this, the fact that they are unable to find accommodation and are wandering accentuates the problem of giving them support. This is particularly true of alcoholics. It is also true of ex-prisoners. The support available to them is nothing like sufficient, and they tend to be thrown back into the situation which led them to prison. They are rootless, homeless and tend to wander around and inevitably they finish up in trouble.
I ask the Minister to set up an inquiry into the size and nature of this problem. We tend to put these people under one heading, whereas there are various groupings of them. We have tended to look at them as people with no fixed abode and have not broken them up into different categories. We need a survey to find out the nature of the problem and to see how these people can be helped. We need something for which many of us have argued for a long time, and that is the extension of housing provision by local authorities for these people, because I cannot see them getting assistance elsewhere. We must try to help the voluntary bodies which are coping with this problem so that we may know more about the nature of what they are trying to do and bring about much more coordination with Government Departments. I make the plea that we should try to find out in much greater detail why these people are homeless, because they do not all start from the same starting point. They arrive at it from very different backgrounds.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my request for greater cor-ordination between his Department and other Departments which are dealing with this problem. With greater co-ordination between Government Departments, local authorities and voluntary bodies, we might be able to establish how we can help these people and make provision for them.
We need far more follow-ups to find out what happens to people who are discharged from prison and mental hospitals. I understand from Christian Action and others that there are about 50,000 people in Greater London alone who are living in what is supposed to be temporary accommodation but which has become permanent accommodation because there is no other place to which they can go. The tragedy is that they can include 16-year-old boys or girls. Many of these people are men who have left home and have fallen into undesirable company. They can include old lags who spend only a few weeks there and presumably again go to prison. These are examples of the two extremes for which we must provide. Many of these people are not attractive personalities and perhaps they should not be given top priority, but they are one of our top


priorities in the social services, not only for their own sake, but because of the problems they cause and the difficulties and cost they cause society.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I thank the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for allowing me a few minutes to speak on this important subject and to put my case as I see it to the Minister.
With the hon. Lady, I met a deputation in the House from what could be called "the dossers" and from the various groups attached to them, such as Christian Action and the Cyrenians. I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Lady presented her Motion, and I hope that in his reply, and in taking action thereafter, the Minister will note that feeling on this subject is not confined to one side of the House. I hope that he will give a satisfactory answer in respect of these unfortunate people.
Perhaps he will recall that the policy of giving greater help and more effective priority to those in greatest need was one of the primary themes on which the Conservative Party fought the last election. In the problems of those about whom we are talking today there lies an important gap in our modern social provision—a gap which anyone who endorses the philosophy of our election manifesto should now be seeking to fill.
Having said that, however, it must at once be said that like so many of the persistent residual problems in what we have become accustomed to think of as an affluent society, it is not a problem to which there is any single, easy, clear-cut solution. The number of people involved is surprisingly large. Estimates are inevitably imprecise and somewhat varied, but I think it would be generally accepted that there are now at least 30,000 "dossiers" in Britain today, and probably as many as 40,000. It is a sad and depressing—indeed, perhaps even alarming—commentary on the casualty rate of a civilised and prosperous industrial country. In this debate they are described as the "unattached homeless". It is a valid and accurate description in that it singles out what is in effect the symptom of their problems rather than the problems themselves.
It would perhaps be a better guide to action if we acknowledged that we are,

in fact, talking about a whole range of inadequate people who, for one reason or another, simply cannot cope in a normal society. They include alcoholics and people who are mentally ill, discharged prisoners, drug addicts, men who have fallen on hard times and have been unable to pull themselves up again, and an increasing number of roofless young people. It is in this immense variation of personal circumstance and background, as well as in the fact of homeless-ness and isolation, that the difficulty of policy lies.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough has already referred to the work of the Cyrenians. I should like to endorse what she said. These unselfish young people are a credit to a Christian community. What we should be seeking to do—the task which faces the Minister—is to see that this type of effort is given the maximum help, co-operation and encouragement by public authorities, instead of being left too often to battle against indifference or bureaucratic buck-passing.
Let me once again remind the Minister, this time in more precise detail, of a passage from the Conservative Party's last manifesto. I am encouraged to do so by the Prime Minister's recent revelation in the Sunday Times interview of 20th June last. Many of his colleagues take a copy of it to Cabinet meetings. This is the passage:
We recognise the important contribution to social welfare that volunteers and voluntary organisations are already making, and we believe there is scope for considerable expansion and development. We are convinced that many of the social problems that now scar society can only be solved through a genuine partnership of effort between statutory and voluntary organisations—between the professional and the volunteer. We will give active support, both financially and legislatively, so that new opportunities may be created in cooperation with the local authorities for all those—and in particular the young people and the retired people—who want to do voluntary social work.
It is well put. It is right. It is exactly what is needed in the matter under discussion today. Is it happening at the moment? I very much doubt it. I doubt it when I see the police simply moving on these unhappy human wrecks from some attempted place of rest in a railway station or other public place. I doubt it when we all know full well that there are thousands of people


in mental hospitals and prisons who will have nowhere to go when they come out.
What, then, should the Minister do? The hon. Member for Eton and Slough has made a number of specific suggestions, which I endorse. But it seems to me that the basic central requirement is for the Minister to make quite clear to the many statutory bodies involved the Government's concern about the problem and the responsibilities which they bear. Employment exchanges, Social Security offices, hospitals, the police and, no doubt, many others will have to play their part.
Most important of all, it must surely be made clear to local authorities what their responsibilities are; that there must be a point where—to quote President Truman's alleged notice—the buck stops. Now that we have unified local welfare establishments along the lines urged by the Seebohm Report it should not be difficult to achieve, but it will also be vital to ensure that the needs of the homeless are taken properly into account. They certainly are not always taken into account at present when local authorities are drawing up housing and development programmes.
The present plight of the 30,000 or 40,000 people is a national disgrace which demands proper recognition and early action. I hope that it will not be long before we see, as a start, an appropriate circular to local authorities.

11.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for raising this subject tonight. It is a subject that has not been discussed as much as it should have been in the House. This debate gives us the opportunity to do just that. It is preeminently a subject for active compassion. It is a many-sided problem, requiring a many-sided solution. A variety of needs are involved—mental, physical, material and spiritual—but there is one common factor in all these men and women—their homelessness.
In a short debate of this nature we can only hope to scratch the surface, but

I can assure the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend that a great deal of work is being done. A great deal of active thought is going on, not only in Government but amongst local authorities and voluntary bodies. I pay a tribute to the work being done by voluntary bodies in this field. For many years they have led the way. They have brought enthusiasm, sympathy and—perhaps most important— informality in dealing with this problem. They have built up a great deal of knowledge about it over the years.
Equally, local authorities who are now gearing themselves up with their new social service departments are also responding. Then there is the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and the work done through the Government in reception and resettlement centres. All these have a part to play in what we freely recognise to be a growing problem—a problem that is growing for a number of reasons. I can assure the House that the Government intend to respond to the growing need to encourage those already working in the field to give active help.
The hon. Lady mentioned the need for co-ordination, as did my hon. Friend. This is a need, because, as this is a many-sided problem, so many people are involved. Many Government Departments are involved, as are many voluntary bodies. I entirely take the point that if we are to make the best use of the resources and enthusiasm, activities must be fully co-ordinated. We aim to do just that.
The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend mentioned some figures concerning the number of people involved. No one can give an authoritative answer at present. An inquiry was carried out on single homeless persons by the National Assistance Board in 1965. That was a long time ago, but it gives us some information on which to build. It included a count of those sleeping rough, reports on 550 lodging houses and shelters and interviews with a sample of men sleeping in them. There was also a special count of the men in reception centres at that time and, later, a sample of men in reception centres was medically examined.
What were the findings? Six out of 10 of the 27,000 men in the lodging houses and shelters in Great Britain and about two-thirds of the 1,900 women had been living in that establishment for six


months or more. About the same proportion of the men and 40 per cent. of the women had been living in lodging houses for five years or more. About a quarter of the men said that they also used reception centres, and about three out of 10 said that they sometimes slept rough, though only 4 per cent. said that they frequently did so. About 200 of the women sometimes slept rough.
Putting all this information together the inquiry report suggested that at that time between 13,000 and 14,000 men and women sometimes slept rough or used reception centres. Of these, in the particular week of the inquiry, about 1,000 men and women, very few women, were actually found sleeping rough. These numbers have probably increased to some extent since then—there is little doubt about that—but, equally, some reports are almost certainly exaggerated. The evidence is that some people live in lodging houses as a matter of choice. To some people, a lodging house is a home. In saying that I do not for a moment want in any way to minimise the extent of the problem, but I merely suggest that some of the figures which have been given may be an exaggeration of the extent of the problem.
Hostel and lodging house accommodation is tending to diminish in number partly through redevelopment schemes in the centres of cities and so on, just at a time when one needs more. It is fortunate that voluntary organisations such as the Salvation Army and the Church Army are building new lodging houses of a good standard and converting others which are not up to the standard which we expect today. There is no doubt that more are needed and it is possible that as the process of modernising takes place, it tends to reduce the number of beds available for the men seeking a basic minimum of accommodation. Organisations like Christian Action, the Cyreneans and the Simon Community have steped in here, and I gladly pay tribute to their work in this respect.
What are the Government doing to assess the problem and to give greater help? The Supplementary Benefits Commission has asked for an inquiry into the extent and quality of lodging house and hostel accommodation and wants to obtain as much information as possible. We are making plans for a survey, and the

leading voluntary organisations in this work will be invited to co-operate.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission has the position in each region under close review and is taking active steps to help those voluntary organisations which are carrying out work analogous to that in its own reception centres and in areas which are not easily accessible to our centres. In London St. Mungo's Community, which operates a soup run for people sleeping rough, plans a systematic extension of homes to which people may be taken from the streets, and my Department is discussing with it ways in which this project may be given support and backing. This shows clearly that we are anxious to co-operate with voluntary organisations and to give them every help.
Equally, the work going on in our own Government centres run by the Supplementary Benefits Commission is of considerable importance, working alongside the voluntary bodies. For example, good pioneering work is being done by a psychiatric social worker who has been stationed at the Camberwell reception centre for two years, and since April, 1970, a psychiatrist and a sociologist have been working there full time. Their report will be ready next spring and an interim report has given us valuable information.
The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend may be interested to know that in the course of the year some 8,000 men passed through the Camberwell centre. About 750 men now sleep there each night, about half the total in all reception centres. About half of these arrive on a casual basis and would otherwise sleep rough and about half stay in either for a few days to get over some crisis which has left them temporarily in need of support until they can find their own feet or for a few weeks while the staff try to find accommodation for them in homes offering permanent support. I pay tribute—as the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend would also wish to do—to the devoted work done in Camberwell in very difficult circumstances.
The hon. Lady mentioned the problem of those people coming out of mental hospitals with no place to go. I am glad to be able to tell her that the number of places in local authority hostels for the mentally ill is being increased. There


is in the pipeline a fairly substantial programme of increasing these places which will be coming into operation in the next few years. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that there is great need for more places, and I assure her that it is in the programme, because it is important that local authorities, too, should be associated with this work. My hon. Friend, in particular, drew attention to that point. The local authorities must be closely involved in all schemes to provide more hostels. It is they who are often best able to express a view of the need in relation to the provision of other allied services and accommodation.
My Department intends to have early talks with representatives of local authorities to discuss how local authorities and the Department can do more to help the voluntary bodies. It is accepted that this is a field in which public fund raising may face initial difficulties and that the Department and the local authorities must use their powers to give some financial aid—what might be described

as pump-priming aid— to the voluntary bodies working in the area concerned. I am sure that the co-operation of the local authorities can be counted on, but the talks with their representatives must be the next step in working out the best means of providing further help.
I hope, therefore, that in the very brief outline that I have been able to give in the time available I have shown that the Government are fully conscious of the problem which exists—a problem which is growing and to which we are responding, both through the surveys which I have mentioned and through the offers of financial help to those voluntary organisations—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.